I am also opposed to this change. I cannot find an exact definition of
BITS in SMIv2. But if it is the same as Bit String it is a very different
syntax from the current HR MIB (RFC 1514). Since this breaks all current
Printer MIB implementations, there cannot be any good reasons for this
On Mon, 16 Nov 1998, Jay Martin wrote:
> Sorry for not catching this change sooner. We've been
> pretty swamped with voluminous drafts in the PWG over
> the past couple of years. Hopefully you can understand
> how such a change might have been missed.
> So, can you give us some kind of a response to our questions?
> Bobby Krupczak wrote:
> > Hi!
> > >This is not good for me, either. Can anyone explain
> > >why this was done? I can get behind this kind of change
> > >if someone can clearly delineate the positive aspects of
> > >using a Bit string as opposed to octetString.
> > >Harry Lewis wrote:
> > >>
> > >> During discussion and review at the "MIB meeting" in Tucson (PWG), we noticed
> > >> (for the first time) that hrPrinterDetectedErrorState syntax was changed from
> > >> octetString to Bits!! I have determined that this will result in code changes
> > >> for us. We are, therefore OPPOSED to this change! Can someone state the reason
> > >> for this change? Is anyone adamantly opposed to leaving it as is?
> > I love this response!!!! Ive been awaiting feedback from various
> > printer working group people for 6 months and only now that its gone
> > through 2 revisions and only now that Im working on the
> > interoperability report for the IETF that anyone objects.
> > Harry Lewis, in particular, should have made these comments much much
> > earlier in the process.
> > Bobby