PMP Mail Archive: RE: PMP> Why were MIN-ACCESS clauses added

PMP Mail Archive: RE: PMP> Why were MIN-ACCESS clauses added

RE: PMP> Why were MIN-ACCESS clauses added to Printer MIB v2?

From: Gocek, Gary (GGocek@crt.xerox.com)
Date: Fri Sep 29 2000 - 08:46:00 EDT

  • Next message: Ron Bergman: "Re: PMP> Why were MIN-ACCESS clauses added to Printer MIB v2?"

    I made my point a little too broadly. We can see how MIN-ACCESS clauses
    ease the implementation burden. However, we noticed a couple of cases
    (prtGeneralCurrentLocalization and prtConsoleLocalization in particular)
    where we feel that the new MIN-ACCESS clauses fundamentally change the
    printer MIB, and we wonder if there is a justification for adding those
    particular MIN-ACCESS clauses. There might be a few more instances, but not
    all 51.

    Thanks again,
    Gary

    > -----Original Message-----
    > From: Gocek, Gary [mailto:GGocek@crt.xerox.com]
    > Sent: Thursday, September 28, 2000 4:35 PM
    > To: 'pmp@pwg.org'
    > Subject: PMP> Why were MIN-ACCESS clauses added to Printer MIB v2?
    >
    >
    > Way back in the first draft (1997) of the new Printer MIB
    > following RFC
    > 1759, all objects with a MAX-ACCESS of read-write were given
    > a MIN-ACCESS of
    > read-only. Previously, only two objects had a MIN-ACCESS
    > clause, but in the
    > latest draft of Printer MIB v2 there are 51 such objects.
    > There is a short
    > note about this change in the document "changes_to_rfc_1759.pdf".
    >
    > In a recent discussion with my colleagues, we wondered why
    > these MIN-ACCESS
    > clauses were added. Of course, we can implement read-write
    > objects if we
    > want to, because that's what the MAX-ACCESS clauses state.
    > But we don't
    > understand why the MIN-ACCESS clauses were added. We see cases where
    > read-write access is helpful, such as during a remote printer
    > installation.
    >
    > Agent implementations that are compliant with RFC 1759 have
    > the objects
    > implemented as read-write, since there are no MIN-ACCESS
    > clauses in 1759
    > that allow read-only. New agent implementations of the v2
    > MIB would be
    > compliant with read-only access, but might break old
    > management or other
    > apps that expect to be able to set all those values.
    >
    > Can anyone think of a good defense for the new MIN-ACCESS clauses?
    >
    > Thanks,
    > Gary Gocek, Xerox Corp.
    >



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Sep 29 2000 - 08:54:50 EDT