Subject: JMP> JOB MIB Charter - Why?

From: [email-masked]
Date: Fri, 7 Nov 1997 12:41:34 -0500

I want to turn this discussion around 180 degrees. Why do you
want to be chartered by the IETF? This is probably heresy coming
from an IETF working group chairman but I really do not see any
advantage for the JOB MIB to be chartered by the IETF. All that
seems to matter is that an RFC number is attached to the JOB MIB
which will happen by it being informational. I do not see the
level (Informational, Proposed, Draft, etc.) that a MIB is at
making any difference in whether a MIB is successful in the
marketplace. Success in the marketplace is determined by a
lot of factors more than merely whether the MIB is on an
IETF Standards Track.
Regards,
Lloyd
------------------------------------------------------------
Lloyd Young                       Lexmark International, Inc.
Senior Program Manager            Dept. C14L/Bldg. 035-3
Strategic Alliances               740 New Circle Road NW
internet: [email-masked]     Lexington, KY 40550
Phone: (606) 232-5150             Fax: (606) 232-6740

---

From: Jay Martin <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 07 Nov 1997 18:26:31 -0500

[Given the general nature of this thread, I have also cc:'d the
general PWG mailing list.]

This statement will come as no surprise to those PWG folks who've
been around for a while.

Having a bonafide "IETF standard" seems to foster the perception that
the standard is "real" and "genuine" in one or more ways, although I
think everyone will be hard pressed to explain exactly why that is.

IMHO, as long as a publicly available document repository exists for
interested parties to extract related documents, a "standard" can
be produced by anyone and used by anyone (assuming copyrights aren't
a problem, of course).

If a given industry decides to align itself towards delivering
products based around a set of standards, it should not matter
who or what produces that standard.

Customers are interested in solutions, not standards.  I know this
sounds like Motherhood-and-Apple-Pie, but some folks seem to think
otherwise, based on various postings on PWG mailing lists.

I personally see no reason for the PWG's JMP effort to be sanctioned
by the IETF.  Instead, JMP should serve as the very first PWG-based
standard published in the printer industry.

What problems do people see with this position?

	...jay

----------------------------------------------------------------------
--  JK Martin               |  Email:   [email-masked]          --
--  Underscore, Inc.        |  Voice:   (603) 889-7000              --
--  41C Sagamore Park Road  |  Fax:     (603) 889-2699              --
--  Hudson, NH 03051-4915   |  Web:     http://www.underscore.com   --
----------------------------------------------------------------------

---

From: Jay Martin <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 07 Nov 1997 18:26:31 -0500

...jay