PWG> Job Monitoring MIB/MIF spec and list, Version 0.5 posted

PWG> Job Monitoring MIB/MIF spec and list, Version 0.5 posted

PWG> Job Monitoring MIB/MIF spec and list, Version 0.5 posted

Tom Hastings hastings at cp10.es.xerox.com
Mon Jan 6 07:29:35 EST 1997


Sorry for the last minute distribution, but I was on vacation for the
last two weeks.


I've updated and posted version 0.5 of the complete Job Monitoring MIB spec 
(jmp-spec.*) and version 0.5 of the list of objects by group (jmp-list.*)
with the agreements reached at the November JMP meeting in New Orleans.  
See the minutes (/pub/pwg/minutes/jm961108.doc) for the list of those
agreements.


Version 0.4 of the jmp-list.* was posted shortly after the November meeting.
Version 0.5 has a few changes suggested at the IETF meeting (see below).


I've moved all of the ISO DPA specification text to Appendix A as agreed.
Appendix B has the comparison with each of the job submission protocols,
but probably needs some updating, since we've added some objects to the MIB.


The actual specifications of each object needs line-by-line review.  We did
not have time for such review at the 11/08/96 meeting as indicated in the
minutes.
Rather we spent the time organizing the objects into groups and tables.
We need to do the line-by-line review of the object specifications.


There are 15 issues listed in jmp-spec.*.  See the end of the table of
contents for the list of issues and page numbers.  We should process
the issues as well at the meeting this week.


I forgot to include the issue of directed traps that Jeff Case suggested
that we invent on our own, following the example of the RMON MIB.


I've posted the files in:


  ftp://ftp.pwg.org/pub/pwg/snmpmib/jobs-mib/


-rw-r--r--   1 pwg      pwg        42496 Jan  6 11:48 jmp-list.doc
-rw-r--r--   1 pwg      pwg        62657 Jan  6 11:49 jmp-list.pdb
-rw-r--r--   1 pwg      pwg        55873 Jan  6 11:49 jmp-list.pdf
-rw-r--r--   1 pwg      pwg        63670 Jan  6 11:49 jmp-list.pdr
-rw-r--r--   1 pwg      pwg       288256 Jan  6 11:49 jmp-spec.doc
-rw-r--r--   1 pwg      pwg       392614 Jan  6 11:50 jmp-spec.pdb
-rw-r--r--   1 pwg      pwg       332997 Jan  6 11:51 jmp-spec.pdf
-rw-r--r--   1 pwg      pwg       397616 Jan  6 11:51 jmp-spec.pdr


The .pdf has no revision marks, .pdr has red revision marks and the .pdb
has black revision marks.  All have line numbers, so use the .pdb or .pdr
files, rather than printing from WORD using the .doc file so that we all
have the same line numbers.


I'll bring 20 copies of the spec and list files with red revision marks (.pdr)
The revision marks don't make it too difficult to read, so lets use the
.pdr or .pdb versions.




In addition to the agreements from the New Orleans meeting,
I've made three changes that were suggested at the IETF meeting where I
presented all the objects.  So these changes are changes since version 0.4
that I posted after the 11/08/96 meeting:  


1. I combined jmQueuing and jmQueuingAlgorithm into a single
jmGeneralQueuingAlgorithm enum that already includes the "none(3)" value, so
we don't need the jmQueuing Boolean.  


2. I added the jmDeviceIndex so that a management application can determine
the hrDeviceIndex for the associated Printer MIB instance that this job was
submitted to or is to be printed on without having to scan the entire
jmResourcesTable thereby resolving ISSUE 04.  


3. I removed the jmJobSourceChannelInformation, since it can now be obtained
easily from the Printer MIB using the jmDeviceIndex object.  


4. In reviewing the minutes of the 11/08/96 meeting in New Orleans, I see
that I also failed to add the table of MIB instances (see point number 1 in
the minutes under Scott's proposal).  So the totals are the same: 36
mandatory objects and 7 conditionally mandatory objects  


5. The suggestion made at the IETF meeting to count jobs in K, instead of
octets, would allow us to combine two 32-bit integer object/attributes into
a single object/attribute.  I have added this idea as an issue for the group
to decide.  See jmp-spec.doc.


See you in New Mexico.


Tom


P.S. Sorry to send this to both the JMP and PWG lists, but the JMP list isn't
very heavily subscribed yet.  I didn't subscribe until a few minutes ago
myself.  I suspect that after this week, we can avoid duplicate mailings.



More information about the Pwg mailing list