PWG Interoperability Testing

PWG Interoperability Testing

PWG Interoperability Testing

Chris Wellens chrisw at iwl.com
Wed Nov 13 17:10:53 EST 1996


On Wed, 13 Nov 1996, Bob Pentecost wrote:


> Am I correct in assuming that we will also be testing the objects called out in Section 3 of the Printer MIB?


YES!




> 3.  Objects from other MIB Specifications
> 
>    This section lists the objects from other IETF MIB specifications
>    that are mandatory for conformance to this Printer MIB specification.
> 
> 3.1.  System Group objects
> 
>    All objects in the system group of MIB-II (RFC 1213) must be
>    implemented.
> 
> 3.2.  System Controller
> 
>    The System Controller is represented by the Storage and Device Groups
>    of the Host Resources MIB (RFC 1514).  These are the only groups that
>    are required to be implemented.  Other Groups (System, Running
>    Software, Running Software Performance, and Installed Software) may
>    be implemented at the discretion of the implementor.
> 
> 3.3.  Interface Group objects
> 
>    All objects in the Interfaces Group of MIB-II (RFC 1213) shall be
>    implemented.
> 
> Printer-MIB DEFINITIONS ::= BEGIN
> [BA1]
> 
> 
> ----------
> From:  Lloyd Young[SMTP:lpyoung at lexmark.com]
> Sent:  Wednesday, November 13, 1996 8:53 AM
> To:  pwg%pwg.org
> Subject:  PWG Interoperability Testing
> 
> Chris Wellens has generated the following test plan for the
> Interoperability Testing for the Printer MIB. As a reminder,
> interoperability testing is required by the IETF for the
> Printer MIB to progress as a Draft Standard. The dates that
> have been selected are December 2nd through 5th, 1996. The
> location is Stardust labs, Campbell, CA. Campbell is a few
> miles west of San Jose.
> 
> Chris, Jay Martin and myself (the ones responsible for coordinating 
> this event) will be developing a more detailed test plan over
> the next three weeks. We believe there is enough detail in this 
> current test plan for companies to commit whenever or not they
> would participate in this event. The cost is a flat $9000 divided
> up between the companies that participate. With all seven companies
> participating, the cost would be approx. $1300 per company.
> 
> The schedule that we would follow is equipment setup on Monday 12/2. 
> Testing would start Tuesday morning 12/3 and continue through 
> Thursday evening 12/5. We have not discussed yet when the 
> testing results would be available for review by the companies 
> and the Printer MIB group.
> 
> I will be contacting the following company representatives on
> Thursday (11/14) and Friday (11/15) to get their participation
> commitment.
> 
>      HP          Bob Pentecost
>      IBM         Harry Lewis
>      Kyocera     Atsushi Yuki
>      Lexmark     Lloyd Young  (We are committed to participate)
>      Novell      Scott Isaacson
>      Tektronix   Andy Davidson
>      Xerox       Angelo Caruso
> 
> Thanks,
> Lloyd
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
> DRAFT  11.12.96  
> Test Plan for Products implementing the Printer MIB, RFC 1759 
> 
> The primary goal of standardization is to achieve interworking of
> systems developed by independent sources.  The IETF standardization
> process as defined by RFC 1602  and updated by draft-ietf-poised95-
> std-proc-3-06.txt. This document requires that interworking of
> implementations of a specification be demonstrated and documented by
> the specification's WG before that specification can be advanced from
> the "Proposed" to "Draft" level on the three level IETF standards
> track. (Note that this requirement differentiates the IETF standards
> process from many other organizations that define standards.)
> 
> A lack of interworking can be due to a poorly specified  standard
> and/or to low quality implementations of the standard. Both of these
> causes must be corrected before interworking can be achieved. However,
> the IETF standardization process only requires that non-interworking
> due to poor specification be corrected and leaves "correction" of low
> quality implementations to "the market."
> 
> A high quality specification is precise, unambiguous, complete,
> understandable, and internally consistent. This  quality level is
> measured by the IETF standards process by demonstration and
> documentation of interworking of implementations of all aspects of a
> specification.
> 
> Implementation of an SNMP MIB requires implementation of a  network
> transport protocol, such as UDP, and implementation  of the SNMP
> protocol.  The SNMP protocol requires two  entities, one acting in a
> "manager" role and the other  acting in the "agent" role. An SNMP MIB
> is implemented in both an agent and a manager.  Demonstrating
> interworking requires that both agents and managers be implemented.
> Implementation of a MIB in an agent typically requires that
> instrumentation and access to that instrumentation, which  is called
> the method routines, be added to the managed  system and those method
> routines be linked to the agent.  (The details of how this is done is
> outside the scope of the standardization process.)
> 
> Implementation of a MIB in  a manager typically takes two approaches.
> The first is  "table driven" using the MIB module specification and
> "generic" applications such as those that retrieve values of instances
> of MIB objects and display and/or plot  them.  The second approach is
> development of a management application that is customized to the
> semantics specified  in a MIB.
> 
> For example, MIBs may contain objects that allow a device to be
> configured. A customized management  application "understands" the
> inter-dependencies, if any, between MIB objects and the consequences of
> changing their  values.  Generic applications do not have such
> "knowledge"  and depend on their user to perform the sequence of steps
> that "make sense", and to interpret their output.
> 
> Participants in the Printer MIB Working Group have now completed 
> distinct agent implementations of the Printer MIB RFC 1759.  {list the
> management applications,}
> 
> Unlike other products implementing SNMP (or other IETF protocols),
> printers are largely receive only devices and do not have a network
> pathway out to other products as hubs, routers, etc. do.  With the
> exception of traps, printers are passive devices from a network
> management perspective.  For this reason, the most significant aspect
> of interoperability will be consistent operation (returning the same
> values) under like operating conditions, rather than the ability of two
> devices to send and receive packets.
> 
> Requirements to Demonstrate Interworking
> 
> I.  Values:  
> In order to move RFC1759 forward to "Draft Standard", each of the 
> implementations must be tested for: 
> (1)  consistent predictable traps 
> (2)  consistent predictable scalars (non-table variables)
> (3)  consistent predictable table values 
> 
> A document reporting the results of all tests for each coded printer
> (stripped of manufacturer identity) will be provided to the IETF.
> 
> II. Applications:  
> Underscore will provide the Print Alert software.  If other software
> applications become available, they will be incorporated into the
> testing.
> 
> III.  Heavy/Load and Heavy Traffic Conditions:  
> Tests in I and II should be repeated under heavy traffic conditions to
> insure that operation remains consistent.
> 
> IV.  Protocol Conformance Testing  
> In addition to all printer MIB specific issues, the general SNMP agent
> should be implemented correctly and capable of passing a suite of
> protocol conformance tests.
> 
> PURPOSE
> The purpose of the testing is to demonstrate satisfactory
> interoperability of the implementations of the Printer MIB RFC 1759, so
> that RFC 1759 may be advanced through the IETF standards process.
> 
> GOALS 
> The outcome of this testing should be an independent, unbiased report
> that states the results of all tests for each coded printer (stripped
> of manufacturer identity). The report must show that 90% of all
> results were consistent. All inconsistent results (the remaining
> 10%) must be addressed by the Printer MIB Working Group and corrective
> action taken.  The corrective action is likely to take two forms:  a.
> request that the vendor(s) with incorrect implementations fix them
> immediately b.  clarification of RFC 1759 to correct divergent
> interpretations.
> 
> METHODOLOGY 
> Schedule an interoperability test event for a three day period that
> vendors or their proxy are required to attend.  The fee to use the
> Stardust lab facility for three days is $9,000.
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> Lloyd Young                       Phone: (606) 232-5150
> Lexmark International Inc.        Fax: (606) 232-6740
> 740 New Circle Road NW            internet: lpyoung at lexmark.com
> Lexington, KY 40511
> 
> 
> 



More information about the Pwg mailing list