Who owns/has change control over Printer/Finisher MIBs and IANA related MIBs

["Wijnen, Bert (Bert)" <bwijnen@lucent.com>]

For your info and possible reaction.
I mentioned this briefly during our telechat last
Thursday . Ned told us that whatever I feel good with
would be fine with him.

To recap:
- we did have a printermib WG in the past in APPs area
  see: http://www.ietf.org/html.charters/OLD/printmib-charter.html
- The work is currently (maybe already back then) done in pwg.org

My position:
- I am OK if they want PS with a 4 week IETF Last Call
  If they do that, it seems we (IETF) have change control and
  so I want that to show up in the ORGANIZATION clause in the
  MIB Module.
- I am also OK if they want to take over change control
  and just publish as Informational. Not 100% sure this is possible
  since original RFC1759 is a PS and owned by IETF and this is just
  a derivative works thing.

The documents in question (in case you have trouble falling asleep):

   draft-ietf-printmib-mib-info-13.txt (is to obsolete RFC1759)
   draft-ietf-printmib-finishing-14.txt
   draft-mcdonald-iana-charset-mib-01.txt

Don't bother about details in the docs and NITs. We are discussing
them with authors and they will fix. 

By the way, for your amusement, see PAF and NED have another
officers role at:
   http://www.pwg.org/mib/index.html

Thanks,
Bert 

-----Original Message-----
From: Wijnen, Bert (Bert) 
Sent: zaterdag 8 februari 2003 16:34
To: 'McDonald, Ira'; 'Ron.Bergman@hitachi-ps.us'; 'harryl@us.ibm.com'
Cc: 'schoenw@ibr.cs.tu-bs.de'; 'dbh@enterasys.com'; 'Wijnen, Bert
(Bert)'; 'ned.freed@mrochek.com'; IANA (E-mail)
Subject: Printer/Finisher MIBs and IANA related MIBs


I am still struggling with one question, and that is
the question who owns (including change control) these
MIB modules.

- It seems clear that you will transfer control (albeit
  with expert review and such) of the two IANA MIB modules
  to IANA. That seems OK if they are IETF maintained 
  code-points/definitions. These are:

    IANA-CHARSET-MIB
    IANA-PRINTER-MIB
    IANA-FINISHER-MIB

  PWG org will still have quite some control, but it is about
  MIB Modules that are published as RFCs, so I can see them
  being administered and controlled by IANA.

- I am not so clear on the Printer-MIB and the Finisher-MIB
  modules. They have different ORGANIZATION listsed:

    printmib MODULE-IDENTITY
        LAST-UPDATED "200210080000Z"
        ORGANIZATION "PWG IEEE/ISTO Printer Working Group"
        CONTACT-INFO "Harry Lewis
                      IBM
                      Phone (303) 924-5337
                      Email: harryl@us.ibm.com
                      http://www.pwg.org/mib/index.html";

--> What is the mailing list for this one?
        DESCRIPTION  "The MIB module for management of printers."


    finisherMIB MODULE-IDENTITY
        LAST-UPDATED "200210080000Z"
        ORGANIZATION "IETF Printer MIB Working Group"
        CONTACT-INFO "Ron Bergman
                      Hitachi Printing Solutions America
                      1757 Tapo Canyon Road
                      Simi Valley, CA 91063-3394
                      Ron.Bergman@hitachi-ps.us

        Send comments to the printmib WG using the Finisher MIB
        Project (FIN) Mailing List:  fin@pwg.org

--> so is the printmib WG the pwg.org?
    is it a subgroup of the pwg.org?
    I get the impression it is the latter these days, and it is
    not so much an IETF WG.

        For further information, access the PWG web page under 'FIN':
              http://www.pwg.org/

        Implementers of this specification are encouraged to join the
        fin mailing list in order to participate in discussions on any
        clarifications needed and registration proposals being reviewed
        in order to achieve consensus."

--> seems to me you want to add some of this stuff also to the
    Printer-MIB 
    DESCRIPTION
        "The MIB module for management of printer finisher units.
         The Finisher MIB is an extension of the Printer MIB."
--> need to add COPYRIGHT thing and something like
         Initial version, published as RFC yyyy.
         -- RFC-Editor assigns yyyy.

Now my understanding is that the Printer-MIB goes for recycled 
PS (Proposed Standard), while the Finisher-MIB goes for 
Informational RFC? 
The PS will cause a (I think) 4 week IETF Last Call, cause the
work happened outside the IETF.

Would it be better that both documents go as Informational RFC
claiming that they are "PWG standards" and published as RFCs
for wider distribution in IETF and for easier access?

Just thinking aloud here.

Thanks,
Bert