PMP> Posted Last Call draft of Port Mon MIB (10 March 2005)

PMP> Posted Last Call draft of Port Mon MIB (10 March 2005)

Wijnen, Bert (Bert) bwijnen at lucent.com
Thu Mar 10 11:46:33 EST 2005


Not sure which level of SMICng you tried, but I get:

  C:\bwijnen\smicng\work>smicmfm wd-pmpportmib10-20050310_mib.mi2
  E: f(wd-pmpportmib10-20050310_mib.mi2), (12,18) Date/time(0503100000Z) must have
    a year greater than 89
** 1 error and 0 warnings in parsing

Years (in LAST-UPDATE and REVISION clauses are 4 digits (yyyy)

I also get:

  C:\bwijnen\smicng\work>smicng wd-pmpportmib10-20050310_mib.inc
  W: f(wd-pmpportmib10-20050310_mib.mi2), (43,21) The first revision should match
     the last update for MODULE-IDENTITY ppmMIB

   *** 0 errors and 1 warning in parsing

And... in general, a REVISION clause is normally only present for each revision
that was actually formally published. Not sure how it works in PMP organisation.
In IETF, revisions in various Internte-Drafts will not have a separate REVISION
clause, only revisions that are published as RFCs.

I did a very quick browse.

I wonder why you do not use SnmpAdminString (RFC3411) instead of defining your
own TC. 

I see: ppmPortProtocolPortNumber and wonder if you not better use
       the InetPortNumber TC from RFC4001

This:

  ppmPortSnmpCommunityName OBJECT-TYPE
    SYNTAX      DisplayString (SIZE (0..255))
    MAX-ACCESS  read-only
    STATUS      current
    DESCRIPTION
        "The SNMP read community name, specified in US-ASCII, for access
        to the printer status information in IETF MIB-II (RFC 1213),
        IETF Host Resources MIB (RFC 1514/2790), and IETF Printer MIB
        (RFC 1759/3805) for this port.

        If this object is empty, then the SNMP read community name for
        this port MUST default to 'public'."
    REFERENCE
        "See:   'snmpCommunityName' in SNMP Community MIB (RFC 3584)."
    DEFVAL      { ''H }                 -- no SNMP read community name
    ::= { ppmPortEntry 7 }

seems pretty INSECURE, plus, a valid SNMP communityName is allowewd to
contain non-ASCII characters. So I find this very questional stuff

I am also worried somewhat by the use of all the DisplaySTring types
(US NVT ASCII). Does not seem to be of current time anymore and
certainly does not seem to be future proof to me

Just my initial 2 cents

Bert
> -----Original Message-----
> From: pmp-owner at pwg.org [mailto:pmp-owner at pwg.org]On Behalf 
> Of McDonald,
> Ira
> Sent: Thursday, March 10, 2005 16:56
> To: 'pmp at pwg.org'; 'pwg at pwg.org'
> Subject: PMP> Posted Last Call draft of Port Mon MIB (10 March 2005)
> 
> 
> Hi folks,                                       Thursday (10 
> March 2005)
> 
> Mike Fenelon converted the PWG Printer Port Monitor MIB to MS Word and
> added PWG boilerplate for v1.0 - status of 'Stable' - now posted at:
> 
>     ftp://ftp.pwg.org/pub/pwg/pmp/wd/wd-pmpportmib10-20050310.doc
>     - MS Word document source
> 
>     ftp://ftp.pwg.org/pub/pwg/pmp/wd/wd-pmpportmib10-20050310.mib
>     - ASN.1 MIB source - SMIv2 format
> 
>     ftp://ftp.pwg.org/pub/pwg/pmp/wd/wd-pmpportmib10-20050310.pdf
>     - Acrobat PDF - PWG boilerplate, introduction, model, references
> 
> This MIB compiles without warnings in both Epilogue Emissary 
> and SMICng.
> 
> We will start a PWG Last Call on this document within the 
> next week, to 
> span the PWG face-to-face meeting in Tokyo in April and 
> finish during a 
> special PWG plenary telecon the following week.
> 
> Cheers,
> - Editors of PWG Printer Port Monitor MIB
>   o Mike Fenelon (Microsoft)
>   o Ivan Pavicevic (Microsoft)
>   o Ron Bergman (Ricoh)
>   o Ira McDonald (High North Inc)
> 
> ----------------------------------------
> [change log - to be deleted before Candidate Standard publication]
> 
> 8 March 2005 (v1.0)
> - Converted to official PWG working draft
> - Expanded the background section
> 



More information about the Pmp mailing list