> On Mon, 5 May 1997, JK Martin wrote:
>
> > Chris,
> >
> > Hope you don't mind my posting your message and my reply to the PMP list.
>
> Jim,
I can only assume you mean "Jay", and not "Jim", right? ;-)
> I *do* mind you copying my private email to you and posting it
> to public groups. It is a breach of confidentiality, and, in
> extremely poor taste.
I sincerely apologize for posting your private email. I had no idea
that you would have reacted so violently. Your message contained
topics of general interest to the PMP (given our long 3 year history),
and I thought the rest of the group would find it useful and relevant
at the time. My mistake. It won't happen again. (Especially if you
never send me private email again. ;-)
> More importantly than that, you violated your non-disclosure
> agreement by publicly posting confidential, proprietary
> information of third parties.
Sorry, but I don't agree with you. Once again you raise this entire
"non-disclosure" issue in the PMP. You brought up this issue during
the Stardust interop testing (last February), and the entire set of
participants told you that there was no such issue, and that the PMP
has had a long history of very open cooperation and information sharing,
long before you arrived on the PMP scene. It is unfortunately you do
not wish to go along with the group's wishes (and history).
> You have also used an IETF mailing list for the purpose of
> promoting your proprietary product. The IETF is an independent
> (read vendor-neutral), non-profit organization.
>
> The only time when it is permissible to discuss a product on an
> IETF mailing list is when you are answering specific questions
> or clarifying specific issues about it that have come up on the
> list. You were not doing this. You were using my private email as a
> foil to get on the soapbox about your product.
I take serious objection to this statement, Chris. I have no idea where
you're headed with this one, but no matter what, you're just plain wrong
on this one. (I have attached the original mail message for general
review of this particular allegation.)
You should note that I briefly mentioned our product only twice, and only
in the context of the subject matter (ie, alerts and how to handle them).
The vast majority of my message described SENSE technology, an intiative
currently in progress within the PWG. (Did you know that?) Moreover,
the SENSE project was an outgrowth of the PMP group, hence the discussion
of that technology on the PMP list.
It's truly regrettable that you have chosen to react so violently.
I hope this response puts these issues to rest.
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> --==--==--==- Chris Wellens President & CEO
> ==--==--==--= Email: chrisw@iwl.com Web: http://www.iwl.com/
> --==--==--==- InterWorking Labs, Inc. 244 Santa Cruz Ave, Aptos, CA 95003
> ==--==--==--= Tel: +1 408 685 3190 Fax: +1 408 662 9065
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
...jay
----------------------------------------------------------------------
-- JK Martin | Email: jkm@underscore.com --
-- Underscore, Inc. | Voice: (603) 889-7000 --
-- 41C Sagamore Park Road | Fax: (603) 889-2699 --
-- Hudson, NH 03051-4915 | Web: http://www.underscore.com --
----------------------------------------------------------------------
----- Begin Included Message -----
>From pmp-owner@pwg.org Mon May 5 09:29 EDT 1997
Date: Mon, 5 May 1997 09:28:08 -0400 (EDT)
From: JK Martin <jkm@underscore.com>
To: chrisw@iwl.com
Subject: PMP> Re: I must be missing something...
Cc: pmp@pwg.org, sense@pwg.com
Chris,
Hope you don't mind my posting your message and my reply to the PMP list.
I've also copied the SENSE discussion list, as
> I have been in Death Valley for a few days, and out of email contact.... in
> reading your response to Gail on a different subject, you mentioned that
> your PrintAlert product is intended to monitor network printers. You had
> also mentioned that you were doing some sort of testing for a large
> customer of all the printers. So, I am wondering if you tried setting up
> the IBM, the DataProducts, and the Lexmark printers to send traps to your
> PrintAlert software, and what the results were? We know that Tektronix,
> Kyocera, and Xerox do not send traps. We know that HP is doing it a
> proprietary way. So, did you find interoperability with the remaining
> three?
Good questions, Chris. The following does not give you the kind of answer
you were looking for, but should give you some food for thought in this area.
First, to parrot the SNMP designers, "Traps are Bad." However, in our
case, the reasons traps are bad are different than that stated by the
SNMP designers. We believe SNMP traps are "Bad" because they are ill-
defined, and not because they add excessive network traffic.
Our PrintAlert product has nothing to do with traps. Why? Because our
product must be able to come and go at any time. The lack of standards
for trap registration force us to use other means.
PrintAlert is based on SENSE (another PWG project). The backend agents
(called "Publishers") talk to the target network printers, then post the
equivalent of traps (with *far* more information than Printer MIB traps,
I might add) to the SENSE server. Applications (called "Subscribers")
interested in MIB-like data (called "Publications") can contact the server
and get that data, even if the associated Publisher is not currently running;
as a result, a SENSE server can provide "disconnected service" for
entity-related information.
Subscriber applications interested in trap-like stuff contact the server
and "subscribe" to one or more "Editions" defined for a given Publication.
(An "Edition" is an abstraction used to define an arbitrary event stream.)
When an Edition Publisher discovers a relevant event has occured for the
associated Publication, the Publisher posts an Edition Event to the server;
the server then sends copies of the event to all current Subscribers.
SENSE also provides one other critical operational feature not defined for
SNMP traps: reliable delivery. Even though the SENSE protocol uses UDP
(as does SNMP), the SENSE server resends event messages to a Subscriber
until the Subscriber acknowledges receipt of the event (or until a defined
timeout has occurred or a maximum retry count has been exceeded).
Hope this brings you up to speed on how our Printer MIB-related management
application uses the Printer MIB, and how it does nothing whatsoever with
SNMP traps.
...jay
PS: By the way, it would be quite trivial to provide the ability to serve
up Printer MIB traps to an arbitrary number of management apps using
the SENSE technology. This would allow a management app to be "mostly"
SNMP-based, but use a "side channel" to a SENSE server to reliably
collect traps from a target printer.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
-- JK Martin | Email: jkm@underscore.com --
-- Underscore, Inc. | Voice: (603) 889-7000 --
-- 41C Sagamore Park Road | Fax: (603) 889-2699 --
-- Hudson, NH 03051-4915 | Web: http://www.underscore.com --
----------------------------------------------------------------------
----- End Included Message -----