PMP Mail Archive: Re: PMP> Re: Syntax Change

PMP Mail Archive: Re: PMP> Re: Syntax Change

Re: PMP> Re: Syntax Change

Harry Lewis (harryl@us.ibm.com)
Tue, 17 Nov 1998 16:28:39 -0500

Bobby, we appreciate your efforts as editor. We just need to determine
the effect of the change. Leaving the syntax as it was may be the safes=
t
path - that way we know nothing is broke. If I understand the definitio=
n...

(3) When encoding an object whose syntax is described using the BIT=
S
construct, the value is encoded as an OCTET STRING, in which al=
l
the named bits in (the definition of) the bitstring, commencing=

with the first bit and proceeding to the last bit, are placed i=
n
bits 8 to 1 of the first octet, followed by bits 8 to 1 of each=

subsequent octet in turn, followed by as many bits as are neede=
d of
the final subsequent octet, commencing with bit 8. Remaining b=
its,
if any, of the final octet are set to zero on generation and
ignored on receipt.

it is really an OCTET STRING, anyway... just given a different name whi=
ch
tries to better reflect it's usage. I notice the definition (above)
references bits 8 to 1 and the usage in the Printer MIB states bits 0-7=
.

Condition Bit #

lowPaper 0
noPaper 1
lowToner 2
noToner 3
doorOpen 4
jammed 5
offline 6
serviceRequested 7

I also notice, on page 22 of the latest printer MIB, it states the
errors are encoded as Bits while (above) it states they are
encoded as an OCTET STRING.

Harry Lewis - IBM Printing Systems
harryl@us.ibm.com

pmp-owner@pwg.org on 11/17/98 11:49:40 AM
Please respond to pmp-owner@pwg.org
To: lpyoung@lexmark.com
cc: rdk@empiretech.com, pmp@pwg.org
Subject: PMP> Re: Syntax Change

Hi!

>2. Regarding why this change was made: Bobby thought and I
>agreed that using BITS more accurately reflected the use of
>hrPrinterDetectedErrorState. I checked with some MIB experts
>and one implementation and could not see how this change would
>break any implementations. The data that goes down "the wire"
>should not change. I will be the first to admit that I may
>have overlooked some impact to an implementation and if we did
>we can certainly re-examine this change.

I am merely the editor with respect to this issue. Ill do whatever
the PWG has come to consensus on. Just be sure, in the future, to
make requests to the editor based on the consensus of the working
group. Thats all I humbly ask for.

Bobby

=