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

[Thomas Narten <narten@us.ibm.com>]

> The problem is that these guys used to be a IETF WG, and
> they went off on their own and have all sorts of (closed
> to non-members) meetings where they do the work.

Not necessarily an issue, so long as the output (i.e., the document)
is reasonable. 

And if this is the de facto standard, and we don't have another MIB to
recommend that folks implement instead, and we don'think its horribly
broken, isn't PS the right signal?

> 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.

2707 has at least two messages:

   This MIB module uses an unconventional scheme for modeling management
   information (on top of the SNMP model) which is unique to this MIB.
   The IESG recommends against using this document as an example for the
   design of future MIBs.

This is a clear technical statement.

   The "Printer Working Group" industry consortium is not an IETF
   working group, and the IETF does not recognize the Printer Working
   Group as a standards-setting body.  This document is being published
   solely to provide information to the Internet community regarding a
   MIB that might be deployed in the marketplace. Publication of this
   document as an RFC is not an endorsement of this MIB.

This is a bit odder, but seems OK for an info document and one that we
aren't really all that happy with (which ties into the previous
technical point).

I guess you are saying that the first comment applies to this document
too. That might be grounds for making it info rather than PS. But I
guess that also depends on how strongly the MIB community feels about
that.

Thomas