RE: printermib - compliance statement(s)

["C. M. Heard" <heard@pobox.com>]

On Tue, 4 Feb 2003, Wijnen, Bert (Bert) wrote:
> I am in fact pushing back somewhat...
> - but we have had a lot of iterations with this MIB already
> - it is HUGE and takes a serious context switch when you
>   have to review again

I downloaded the draft and I see what you mean :-(

> - Review (since they have so many changes here and thre
>   and everywhere) takes a day at least

And that's if you are a speed demon.  It would take me
weeks (yes, plural) unless I could audit just the changes.

> - they claim that all printer vendors and the (commercial)
>   mgmt apps for these MIBs are pretty much in sync on this
>   and really want to go this way. it is an org outside
>   IETF these days, even though the docs seem to indicate
>   that it is the IETF printmib WG (has not been active
>   within IETF for many years).

I did a little digging and it seems that the organization
doing this work is called the Printer Working Group or PWG
("PWG IEEE/ISTO Printer Working Group" according to the
ORGANIZATION clause of the MIB module).  It's apparently
the same organization that is responsible for RFC 2707,
The Job Monitoring MIB;  at least, the web site
http://www.pwg.org/ and the name PWG are the same.

I notice that the document draft-ietf-printmib-mib-info-13.txt
says it is targeted at the standards track, and your previous
e-mail said the doc was recycling at PS.  My question is,
why is the document on the standards track at all if the
IETF has ceded change control?  RFC 2707 is informational
and has an IESG Note that disclaims IETF responsibility for
the document.  Is seems to me that this document ought to
get the same treatment as RFC 2707.  Then you (and the MIB
doctors) can advise, but the PWG will be free to ignore that
advice, and the IETF can then wash its hands of responsibility.
On the other hand, if it is going to be on the IETF standards
track, then (to paraphrase something Marshall Rose once said)
the MIB revisions ought to be done by the IETF's rules.

//cmh

P.S.  I found RFC 2707 by looking through all RFCs to see if
there were any references to the Printer-MIB in any published
RFCs.  The only ones were 2707 and 1759 (which was the previous
incarnation of the MIB).