Subject: PWG> Re: JMP> JOB MIB Charter - Why?

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   --
----------------------------------------------------------------------

[email-masked] wrote:
> 
> 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