[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
FW: Who owns/has change control over Printer/Finisher MIBs and IANA r elated MIBs
- To: "Scott Bradner (E-mail)" <sob@harvard.edu>
- Subject: FW: Who owns/has change control over Printer/Finisher MIBs and IANA r elated MIBs
- From: "Wijnen, Bert (Bert)" <bwijnen@lucent.com>
- Date: Mon, 10 Feb 2003 14:37:14 +0100
- Cc: "Iesg (E-mail)" <iesg@ietf.org>
Scott, I would specifically appreciate a response from you
(our process guru ;-)) w.r.t. the question:
- We (IETF) have RFC1759 (Printer-MIB) as PS.
- I propose to do the revision as Informational RFC
and state that it is an RFC-publication of an IEEE/ITSO PWG
standard. (It will obsolte RFC1759).
- So it is no longer a 100% IETF owned/controlled document
Is that OK from a process/legal point of view?
Thanks,
Bert
-----Original Message-----
From: Wijnen, Bert (Bert) [mailto:bwijnen@lucent.com]
Sent: zaterdag 8 februari 2003 16:43
To: Iesg (E-mail)
Subject: Who owns/has change control over Printer/Finisher MIBs and IANA
r elated MIBs
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