Good job so far on the Printer MIB update! I don't know if everyone
in the group knows how much work is required to edit a document like
this! How do you find the time?
However, the following items still need to be corrected in the
August draft of the Printer MIB. Since I was unable to attend the
meeting in San Diego, I am not sure if any of these issues were
discussed at that time. (I did not see any mention in the minutes.)
(The page numbers are relative to the draft document.)
page #14: There are now two definitions of Busy. The minutes
indicate there was some discussion regarding Busy but
what were the results?
page #19: The title of 188.8.131.52 should be "Alert Table" (no "s")
The second sentence of 184.108.40.206 should read "This section
provides an overview..." (not "...and overview...")
page #21: The title of 220.127.116.11 should be "Traversing the Alert
Table". Also, the text for this paragraph is missing.
page #33,34: Add the following descriptions for PrtChannelTypeTC.
chLPDServer(8), --TCP port 515, RFC 1179
chFTP(13), --RFC 959
chTFTP(14), --RFC 1350
chIBM3270(16), --IBM Coax Data Stream
chIBM5250(17), --IBM Twinax Data Stream
chDECLAT(32), --Local Area Transport Protocol
--Digital Equipment Corp.
Also, the following enums were to be removed since they do not
fit (even our kitchen sink) definition of a channel type. The
original sponsor can appeal this decision if necessary. (This
was the conclusion in the Montreal meeting.)
And for chTransport1(20), the description "This RFC should also be
referenced for other channel enumerations utilizing TCP port numbers
0 through 1024." sounds more like a reminder to the editor to add
some new text. This note does not appear to be applicable to most
of the ports in this range. It would be best if the note were added
only to those ports that required this additional information.
Otherwise, it will be very difficult to use the RFC as a reference
document. (I do not see any other enums that require this note!)
page #47: The following two entries were to be removed, since they
were not a part of RFC 1759.
page #76: The description for prtMarkerIndex should read...
"A unique value used by the printer to identify this marking
page #90: The third paragraph under "The Channel Group" should read:
"Channel Table describes the installed capabilities of the
page #104: There is a blank line in the description for the object
page #105: The end of the description of prtConsoleDisplayBufferIndex
"...values are normally expected to remain stable across
successive power cycles."
page #106: Same as above for prtConsoleLightIndex
rbergma at dpc.com