RE: FW: Who owns/has change control over Printer/Finisher MIBs an d IA NA r elated MIBs

[Scott Bradner <sob@harvard.edu>]

> In the end, they eat up a lot of time from me and my MIB
> doctors to review theit sh..., I mean stuff. And this
> print-mib itslef is still kind of OK (after having had
> 5 or so revisions based on repeated comments from me and
> a few key MIB doctors).

but I would expect that the MIB geeks woudl still do a review
of any update to this even if was only info - so I'm not
sure that making it info would save much review time

> The other document draft-ietf-printmib-finishing-14.txt
> has again similar stuff to RFC2707 on which we put an IESG note.
> I feel for a similar IESG note for this one.

the 2707 note is rather pointed and I would not want to see that
on a PS doc but if the MIB is "OK" and it gets a 4-week last call
woudl it need such a note?

bottom line - I do not see any process problems with Bert's suggestion
to do this an an Info that obsoletes a stds track RFC

Scott