PMP Mail Archive: Re: PMP> Traps - new info

PMP Mail Archive: Re: PMP> Traps - new info

Re: PMP> Traps - new info

Ira Mcdonald x10962 (imcdonal@eso.mc.xerox.com)
Tue, 22 Apr 1997 12:05:44 PDT

Hi Ang,

I thoroughly agree with your words below. Note that some other
Xerox printers (now shipping) in the DocuCentre family DO emit
SNMP traps, but do registration through the old (sigh!) SNMPv2
Party MIB, so this too will need changing. The problem of trap
sinks registration independent of any 'security' model of a
system is a universal hassle in NMS products.

Cheers,
- Ira

Return-Path: <pmp-owner@pwg.org>
Received: from zombi (zombi.eso.mc.xerox.com) by snorkel.eso.mc.xerox.com (4.1/XeroxClient-1.1)
id AA13058; Tue, 22 Apr 97 10:47:33 EDT
Received: from alpha.xerox.com by zombi (4.1/SMI-4.1)
id AA12950; Tue, 22 Apr 97 10:44:28 EDT
Received: from lists.underscore.com ([199.125.85.30]) by alpha.xerox.com with SMTP id <17486(12)>; Tue, 22 Apr 1997 07:45:25 PDT
Received: from localhost (daemon@localhost) by lists.underscore.com (8.7.5/8.7.3) with SMTP id KAA12972 for <imcdonal@eso.mc.xerox.com>; Tue, 22 Apr 1997 10:41:08 -0400 (EDT)
Received: by pwg.org (bulk_mailer v1.5); Tue, 22 Apr 1997 10:39:31 -0400
Received: (from daemon@localhost) by lists.underscore.com (8.7.5/8.7.3) id KAA12856 for pmp-outgoing; Tue, 22 Apr 1997 10:39:07 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Tue, 22 Apr 1997 08:14:20 PDT
From: "Caruso,Angelo" <Angelo_Caruso@wb.xerox.com>
Subject: Re: PMP> Traps - new info
To: pmp@pwg.org
Message-Id: <48C85C3381262D7948C85C3381262D79#064#x-wb-0311-ms1.xerox@SMF>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=US-ASCII
Posting-Date: Tue, 22 Apr 1997 10:22:07 -0400
Priority: normal
Hop-Count: 3
Sender: pmp-owner@pwg.org
Status: R

Since SNMP currently provides no standard mechanism by which trap
recipients can be registered with agents, I fail to see how the PWG
can claim that interoperability of traps have been demonstrated. If
certain vendors have demonstrated they can send/receive Printer MIB
traps using a proprietary registration mechanism, congratulations,
you've validated your implementation. And, I think that is enough
justification for keeping the trap in the MIB spec.

Speaking for the Xerox products which have made appearances at Printer
MIB interop testing, they DO NOT emit traps. The reason is simple,
there is no standard mechanism for registering trap recipients. Any
Xerox proprietary mechanism would be useful only with Xerox management
apps. Current Xerox management apps for these printers rely on polling
rather than traps.

I do not believe that failure of the SNMP community to specify a
standard mechanism for registering trap recipients should be deemed a
condemnation of the Printer MIB trap spec. I think we should keep the
trap in anticipation of a forthcoming standard registration mechanism.
And, we should check any currently proposed mechanisms to verify that
the current Printer MIB trap specification is compatible with those
proposed registration mechanisms.

Thanks,
Angelo