No, SENSE is not the answer. The question is how to register
with an SNMP Agent on an SNMP manageable device for traps.
SENSE may be a good idea, but it's a NEW protocol, and it
certainly does NOT tell a client how to DIRECTLY register
with an SNMP manageable device for SNMP traps.
- Ira McDonald
>--------------------- Included Message --------------------------<
Received: from zombi (zombi.eso.mc.xerox.com) by snorkel.eso.mc.xerox.com (4.1/XeroxClient-1.1)
id AA06464; Fri, 4 Apr 97 10:09:50 EST
Received: from alpha.xerox.com by zombi (4.1/SMI-4.1)
id AA04302; Fri, 4 Apr 97 10:07:15 EST
Received: from uscore.underscore.com ([18.104.22.168]) by alpha.xerox.com with SMTP id <18021(9)>; Fri, 4 Apr 1997 07:07:25 PST
Received: (from jkm@localhost) by uscore.underscore.com (8.8.4/8.7.2) id KAA00157; Fri, 4 Apr 1997 10:03:24 -0500 (EST)
Date: Fri, 4 Apr 1997 07:03:24 PST
From: JK Martin <email@example.com>
Subject: Re: PMP> Traps
> Why bother to have standard traps, if there's no
> standard way to register for them. Why bother to have the
> idea of 'trap-directed polling', if you can't get the traps.
> Xerox folks think this seriously hampers the utility of the
> Printer MIB.
You're not alone in this concern. You've stated the precise reason
why the PWG SENSE project was started, to design a method of
registering for async events (eg, traps) and to receive them in
a reasonably reliable manner.
> Perhaps it's worth having a (localized) fix
> imbedded in the Printer MIB V2.0 - certainly it's impossible
> to show interworking in traps, unless two vendors still
> support the deprecated Party MIB (RFC 1447) - any volunteers?
Once we put the Job MIB to bed, perhaps we'll have some cycles
available to focus on the SENSE effort as a means of providing
this kind of capability, at least for printers.