Subject: Re: JMP> PWG> Formal PWG process for assigning PWG enterpris

From: Harry Lewis <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 10 Nov 1997 12:00:34 -0500

I think we are saying the same thing... for the most part, I think
the "PWG Project" (JMP, PMP, FIN...) relates directly to a "standard"
(Job MIB, Printer MIB, Finisher MIB...) which may be rev'ed throughout
it's life. I am suggesting we might rather these rev's be .1, .2, .3
etc. instead of .12, .45, .162 (for example) as would happen with a
"flat" registration under "PWG".

---

From: Jay Martin <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 10 Nov 1997 12:08:05 -0500

Harry,

> "flat" registration under "PWG".

Ah, I see your point.  That's an interesting approach.  Just curious,
but is there any precedent for this approach elsewhere, either within
the IETF or perhaps a private enterprise?

We need to decide on this structure asap, so if anyone in PWG-land
has any useful comments or suggestions, please post them as quickly
as possible, as the JMP group desparately wants to nail down their
draft text before the turn of the millennium.

I would propose that the official structure be decided on during the
upcoming December PWG meeting in Los Angeles, unless of course, there
are no substantive objections to plan as proposed by Harry and Ron
(via the JMP group).

	...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   --
----------------------------------------------------------------------