PMP Mail Archive: RE: PMP> Re: Lastest Host MIB v2smi draft [or register IPP in PMP

PMP Mail Archive: RE: PMP> Re: Lastest Host MIB v2smi draft [or register IPP in PMP

RE: PMP> Re: Lastest Host MIB v2smi draft [or register IPP in PMP

Hastings, Tom N (hastings@cp10.es.xerox.com)
Tue, 11 May 1999 15:39:34 -0700

Don,

Your reply doesn't seem to fit the message it was attached to. Instead,
your message seems possibly to be a reply to Harry's, Jay's, and my thread
that we should register IPP in the Printer MIB channel table.

Just in case your comment was against registering IPP in the Printer MIB
channel table, MOST of the registered protocols in the channel table are NOT
standards at all, but are proprietary protocols. So there is no reason not
to register IPP in the draft Printer MIB document because it is only an
Experimental protocol. People who are building IPP and the Printer MIB into
current devices would like to be able to indicate the job submission channel
in the Printer MIB.

Tom

-----Original Message-----
From: don@lexmark.com [mailto:don@lexmark.com]
Sent: Sunday, May 02, 1999 11:19
To: harryl@us.ibm.com
Cc: rdk@empiretech.com; lpyoung@lexmark.com; pmp@pwg.org;
chrisw@iwl.com; WIJNEN@vnet.ibm.com
Subject: Re: PMP> Re: Lastest Host MIB v2smi draft

Adding a non-standards track protocol (at least at this point in time) to a
standards track MIB would seem to be contrary to the IETF's process.

**********************************************
* Don Wright don@lexmark.com *
* Director, Strategic & Technical Alliances *
* Lexmark International *
* 740 New Circle Rd *
* Lexington, Ky 40550 *
* 606-232-4808 (phone) 606-232-6740 (fax) *
**********************************************

harryl%us.ibm.com@interlock.lexmark.com on 04/30/99 06:58:14 PM

To: rdk%empiretech.com@interlock.lexmark.com
cc: Lloyd Young@LEXMARK, pmp%pwg.org@interlock.lexmark.com,
chrisw%iwl.com@interlock.lexmark.com,
WIJNEN%vnet.ibm.com@interlock.lexmark.com (bcc: Don
Wright/Lex/Lexmark)
Subject: PMP> Re: Lastest Host MIB v2smi draft

I'm not sure I correctly understand the use of syntax productID in the
Devices Table of the HR MIB.

Let's say I have an internal registry as recommended by the RFC. So one of
my NICs is

enterprise.ibm.ibmprinters.network.ethernet.ibm (for example)

or a printer device is

enterprise.ibm.ibmprinters.printer.info32

Is it mandated that I use this "articulated" representation of the syntax?
Of can I represent the OID as 1.3.6.1.4.1.2.9.2.2.3.1? This is the OID, for
example, for my network card example above. This is more compact (embedded
printers... remember?)... but not at all useful unless I make my registry
public. I don't see a lot of companies making these public so maybe I've
answered my own question.

What about the fact that some components (network cards, for example) may
already have unique plug-n-play IDs. Use them?

I'd like to know the "official" intent, however. Thanks. Maybe it's already
spelled out somewhere that I didn't find.

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