PWG> Job MIB posted and sent as an Internet-Draft

PWG> Job MIB posted and sent as an Internet-Draft

PWG> Job MIB posted and sent as an Internet-Draft

Tom Hastings hastings at cp10.es.xerox.com
Thu Jan 22 17:35:53 EST 1998


After two weeks of mud wrestling with WORD97, I've succeeded in producing
a text file that meets the IETF requirements for an Internet-Draft (and
an RFC).  


Ron and I have agreed that I should send it as it is as an Internet-Draft
today.


I've kept the flat OID structure as agreed at the JMP meeting.  If we decide
to change to another structure at the PWG meeting next week, we can
re-issue another Internet-Draft before requesting the IESG to process it
as an Informational RFC.


*****************************************************************************
So one of the agenda items for next week's (1/28/98) PWG meeting is:


  Ok to request the IESG to process the Internet-Draft as an Information RFC?
  In other words, is this version the approved PWG Job Monitoring MIB
standard?
*****************************************************************************


I've simplified the .doc, so that it is all fixed pitch Courier New.
I've also eliminated the bolding, since it was hard to read with
CourierNew.


The table of contents and index agree with the page numbers.  All the
cross-references are correct.


There are almost no changes since the version that I posted last December 21.


One addition is to explain why implementors should join the jmp DL,
which had support on the mailing list.


One change was to shorten the processingMessageNaturalLanguageTag
attribute name to processingMessageNaturalLangTag.


All other changes were simply formatting.  I've tried to reduce the
number of bad page breaks.


So the .pdf files have lines numbers and the number of lines agree
with the text/plain version (which does not have line numbers).


In order to compile with SMICng, I commented out the attribute
description by simply replacing two leading spaces with --.


So now the jmp-mib.txt file compiles with SNICng, Epilogue 6.0, and mosy 7.1
with no errors and only warnings about the TCs being defined but not
used (since they are part of the description within the AttributeTC itself).


The files are:


ftp://ftp.pwg.org/pub/pwg/jmp/mibs/jmp-mib-rev.doc
ftp://ftp.pwg.org/pub/pwg/jmp/mibs/jmp-mib-rev.pdf
ftp://ftp.pwg.org/pub/pwg/jmp/mibs/jmp-mib.doc
ftp://ftp.pwg.org/pub/pwg/jmp/mibs/jmp-mib.pdf
ftp://ftp.pwg.org/pub/pwg/jmp/mibs/jmp-mib.txt
ftp://ftp.pwg.org/pub/pwg/jmp/mibs/jmp-mib.mib
ftp://ftp.pwg.org/pub/pwg/jmp/mibs/jmp.dic
ftp://ftp.pwg.org/pub/pwg/jmp/mibs/mibvaria.dot


The files with "rev" have revision marks.
The .mib file has the headers and footers stripped off.


I've called it version 0.90 on the cover sheet of the one
with revisions.  The body of the documents calls it version 1.0.
The version without revision marks and the .txt do not have the
cover sheet.


I've copied the 0.89 version files from December 22 to:


ftp://ftp.pwg.org/pub/pwg/jmp/mibs/historical/historical-089/


if you want to see the changes that were made in December.
(Since I forgot to populate the historical directories when I posted
the files in December, they have today's date).


(There is no version 0.88 - that was just a proof reading version that
I sent to Ron and Harry before the December meeting).


Tom



More information about the Pwg mailing list