Don,
Your reply doesn't seem to fit the message it was attached to. Instead,
your message seems possibly to be a reply to Harry's, Jay's, and my thread
that we should register IPP in the Printer MIB channel table.
Just in case your comment was against registering IPP in the Printer MIB
channel table, MOST of the registered protocols in the channel table are NOT
standards at all, but are proprietary protocols. So there is no reason not
to register IPP in the draft Printer MIB document because it is only an
Experimental protocol. People who are building IPP and the Printer MIB into
current devices would like to be able to indicate the job submission channel
in the Printer MIB.
Tom
-----Original Message-----
From: don at lexmark.com [mailto:don at lexmark.com]
Sent: Sunday, May 02, 1999 11:19
To: harryl at us.ibm.com
Cc: rdk at empiretech.com; lpyoung at lexmark.com; pmp at pwg.org;
chrisw at iwl.com; WIJNEN at vnet.ibm.com
Subject: Re: PMP> Re: Lastest Host MIB v2smi draft
Adding a non-standards track protocol (at least at this point in time) to a
standards track MIB would seem to be contrary to the IETF's process.
**********************************************
* Don Wright don at lexmark.com *
* Director, Strategic & Technical Alliances *
* Lexmark International *
* 740 New Circle Rd *
* Lexington, Ky 40550 *
* 606-232-4808 (phone) 606-232-6740 (fax) *
**********************************************
harryl%us.ibm.com at interlock.lexmark.com on 04/30/99 06:58:14 PM
To: rdk%empiretech.com at interlock.lexmark.com
cc: Lloyd Young at LEXMARK, pmp%pwg.org at interlock.lexmark.com,
chrisw%iwl.com at interlock.lexmark.com,
WIJNEN%vnet.ibm.com at interlock.lexmark.com (bcc: Don
Wright/Lex/Lexmark)
Subject: PMP> Re: Lastest Host MIB v2smi draft
I'm not sure I correctly understand the use of syntax productID in the
Devices Table of the HR MIB.
Let's say I have an internal registry as recommended by the RFC. So one of
my NICs is
enterprise.ibm.ibmprinters.network.ethernet.ibm (for example)
or a printer device is
enterprise.ibm.ibmprinters.printer.info32
Is it mandated that I use this "articulated" representation of the syntax?
Of can I represent the OID as 1.3.6.1.4.1.2.9.2.2.3.1? This is the OID, for
example, for my network card example above. This is more compact (embedded
printers... remember?)... but not at all useful unless I make my registry
public. I don't see a lot of companies making these public so maybe I've
answered my own question.
What about the fact that some components (network cards, for example) may
already have unique plug-n-play IDs. Use them?
I'd like to know the "official" intent, however. Thanks. Maybe it's already
spelled out somewhere that I didn't find.
Harry Lewis
IBM Printing Systems
harryl at us.ibm.com