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

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

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

Tom Hastings hastings at cp10.es.xerox.com
Thu Jan 22 19:57:28 EST 1998


<bigger>My previous e-mail indicated that I had sent the posted


Job Monitoring MIB as an Internet-Draft.  But just as I was


sending it, I realized that the Abstract and the Introduction


state that the draft "has been approved as a PWG standard".




Ron and I would like to verify that the Job Monitoring MIB


that I posted today on the PWG server has been approved as a PWG 


standard at the PWG next week, before we send the Internet-Draft


that says that it is an approved PWG standard.




So I have NOT sent the Internet-Draft, rather than changing


the following Abstract and Introduction paragraphs:




                             Abstract




This document has been developed and approved by the Printer Working
Group (PWG) as a PWG standard.  It is intended to be distributed as an
Informational RFC.  This document provides a printer industry standard
SNMP MIB for (1) monitoring the status and progress of print jobs (2)
obtaining resource requirements before a job is processed, (3) monitoring
resource consumption while a job is being processed and (4) collecting
resource accounting data after the completion of a job.  This MIB is
intended to be implemented (1) in a printer or (2) in a server that
supports one or more printers.  Use of the object set is not limited to
printing.  However, support for services other than printing is outside
the scope of this Job Monitoring MIB.  Future extensions to this MIB may
include, but are not limited to, fax machines and scanners.






1.0 Introduction




This specification defines an official Printer Working Group (PWG)


[PWG] standard SNMP MIB for the monitoring of jobs on network 


printers.  This specification is being published as an IETF 


Information Document for the convenience of the Internet community.  


In consultation with the IETF Application Area Directors, it was 


concluded properly belongs as an Information document, because 


this MIB monitors a service node on the network, rather than a network
node proper.










Please review the posted Job Monitoring MIB before next week's


PWG meeting, so that we can agree at the PWG meeting that it


is "an approved PWG standard".




Thanks,


Tom


</bigger>




At 14:35 01/22/1998 PST, Tom Hastings wrote:


>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