Re: Anyone there?

["C. Adam Stolinski" <[e-mail]>]

Hi Maria,

Bonne Chance!  Welcome to the WG.

If there are any changes to be made to RFC 1628 (other than status) the
WG must be aware of the new final Power Device Class (PDC) specification
of the USB consortium.  Myself, D.Lallement (tech editor), Doug
Raudemacher, and others of the UPS industry worked over the past two
years to develop the PDC specification, which became final in Jan'98.
The URL for the document is at
http://www.teleport.com/~usb/data/pdcv10.pdf

This spec uses the same objects as in RFC 1628, to preserve the work
done by UPS mfgrs on SNMP, and adds some not addressed in RFC 1628
(electrical switches).  It also uses the same objects for batteries as
in the Smart Battery Spec (Intel & Duracell) currently used by the O/S
in notebooks.

In the interest of common open-standard, I would not want any changes in
RFC 1628 that would create incompatibilities with the PDC 1.0.

That said, I am willing to participate in any WG activity that the WG,
or the IETF, needs to continue the UPS MIB spec availability.

Best Regards,
Adam Stolinski,
MGE UPS Systems

-----Original Message-----
From: Maria Greene <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail] <[e-mail]>
Date: Wednesday, April 29, 1998 11:16 AM
Subject: Anyone there?


>
>Hi, UPSers. It has been suggested that I get involved as co-chair of
>this WG to try to get RFC1628 moved along. (Jeff finally half
>succeeded in quitting. :)
>
>There hasn't been any real discussion on this list for over a
>year. Does anybody care about this MIB? I'm not a UPS developer, nor
>do I play one on tv, so I would need real participation from you guys
>if this is to get done.
>
>One of our illustrious area directors (Bert Wijnen) has made this
>request:
>
>    > So I would want the WG to decide on one of these:
>    >  a. Recycle a doc at Proposed (seems there is a list of wanted
>    >     changes that would require a recycle at Proposed).
>    >  b. Move the doc to Draft (if the changes turn out not to require
>    >     a recycle at Proposed). It seems that there are multiple
>    >     implementations, not sure yet if they are interoperable. That
>    >     would have to be proven in this case.
>    >  c. Decide that the current doc is good enough and make it an
>    >     informational document.
>    > In any event, we cannot leave the RFC1628 lingering at Proposed
forever.
>    > If options a or b are chosen then I need a new set of milestones
too.
>
>I need your opinions on this and any input you have about "wanted
>changes". Based on the response, we'll decide where to go from there.
>
>Maria Greene
>[e-mail]