Bert,
The corrected Printer MIB ID (with page breaks) is now available (finally!)
at the IETF internet-drafts site. The version is still -11.
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-printmib-mib-info-11.txt
Ron Bergman
Hitachi Koki Imaging Solutions
-----Original Message-----
From: Wijnen, Bert (Bert) [mailto:bwijnen@lucent.com]
Sent: Monday, January 07, 2002 12:37 PM
To: Ron.Bergman@Hitachi-hkis.com; bwijnen@lucent.com
Cc: schoenw@ibr.cs.tu-bs.de; dbh@enterasys.com; pmp@pwg.org;
IMcDonald@crt.xerox.com; harryl@us.ibm.com; RCasterline@lhsolutions.com;
Patrik Fältström
Subject: RE: Response to Printer MIB Comments of 15 Nov, 2001
If you can quickly just post another rev that has the proper
pagination, that would be best
Bert
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ron.Bergman@Hitachi-hkis.com
> [mailto:Ron.Bergman@Hitachi-hkis.com]
> Sent: Monday, January 07, 2002 6:44 PM
> To: bwijnen@lucent.com
> Cc: schoenw@ibr.cs.tu-bs.de; dbh@enterasys.com; pmp@pwg.org;
> IMcDonald@crt.xerox.com; harryl@us.ibm.com;
> RCasterline@lhsolutions.com
> Subject: RE: Response to Printer MIB Comments of 15 Nov, 2001
>
>
> Bert,
>
> Our latest version MIB is now *finally* available at:
>
> http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-printmib-mib-in
> fo-11.txt
>
> Unfortunately, the posted version is missing form feeds. Ira
> McDonald has a
> version that contains the missing form feeds and is also
> planning to run it
> through David Perkins' "mstrip" tool to extract the MIB. I
> can send to you
> either the version with form feeds and/or the stripped MIB if
> don't want to
> deal with unfriendly version that was posted.
>
> Ron Bergman
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Wijnen, Bert (Bert) [mailto:bwijnen@lucent.com]
> Sent: Saturday, December 08, 2001 9:08 PM
> To: Bergman, Ron; 'bwijnen@lucent.com'
> Cc: 'schoenw@ibr.cs.tu-bs.de'; 'dbh@enterasys.com'; 'pmp@pwg.org'; Ira
> McDonald (E-mail); Harry Lewis (E-mail); Ray Casterline (E-mail 2)
> Subject: RE: Response to Printer MIB Comments of 15 Nov, 2001
>
>
> I did not yet look at the new rev (too busy preparing for
> IETF... and I bet Dave Harington is in same situation).
>
> Why don;t you post the new draft as soon as repository opens up
> again and then we'll review.
>
> Bert
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Bergman, Ron [mailto:Ron.Bergman@Hitachi-hkis.com]
> > Sent: Tuesday, December 04, 2001 5:03 PM
> > To: 'bwijnen@lucent.com'
> > Cc: 'schoenw@ibr.cs.tu-bs.de'; 'dbh@enterasys.com';
> 'pmp@pwg.org'; Ira
> > McDonald (E-mail); Harry Lewis (E-mail); Ray Casterline (E-mail 2)
> > Subject: Response to Printer MIB Comments of 15 Nov, 2001
> >
> >
> > Bert,
> >
> > The Working Group has had extensive discussions relating to
> > the five points that you presented on November 15. We have
> > finally reached an agreement and propose changes for all 5
> > issues.
> >
> > Please let me know if you would like an updated draft
> > immediately, or would like first to complete your review of
> > the previous draft (version 10). I have not seen any
> > comments on this version from either yourself or David or
> > Juergen. Can we assume there are no further issues?
> >
> > Please see the comments from the WG, prefixed by "WG>>".
> >
> > Ron Bergman
> >
> >
> > Original Message...
> >
> > Ron... if you have it complete, maybe you can send us a prelimenary
> > copy to quickly check if we are happy with it.
> >
> > Juergen, that for checking with your nice little tool/toy.
> >
> > More comments inline
> >
> > Bert
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Bergman, Ron [mailto:Ron.Bergman@Hitachi-hkis.com]
> > > Sent: Thursday, November 15, 2001 9:07 PM
> > > To: 'Juergen Schoenwaelder'
> > > Cc: bwijnen@lucent.com; dbh@enterasys.com;
> IMcDonald@crt.xerox.com;
> > > Bergman, Ron; harryl@us.ibm.com; RCasterline@crt.xerox.com;
> > > pmp@pwg.org;
> > > paf@cisco.com; ned.freed@mrochek.com
> > > Subject: RE: Print MIB 09
> > >
> > >
> > > Juergen,
> > >
> > > Thank you again for the comments. I have just about
> > > completed the draft, so
> > > I should be able to incorporate any changes necessary in
> > > version 10. See my
> > > comments below prefixed by RB>>.
> > >
> > > Ron
> > >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Juergen Schoenwaelder [mailto:schoenw@ibr.cs.tu-bs.de]
> > > Sent: Thursday, November 15, 2001 1:28 AM
> > > To: Ron.Bergman@Hitachi-hkis.com
> > > Cc: bwijnen@lucent.com; dbh@enterasys.com;
> IMcDonald@crt.xerox.com;
> > > Ron.Bergman@Hitachi-hkis.com; harryl@us.ibm.com;
> > > RCasterline@crt.xerox.com; pmp@pwg.org; paf@cisco.com;
> > > ned.freed@mrochek.com
> > > Subject: Re: Print MIB 09
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > >>>>> Bergman, Ron writes:
> > >
> > > Ron> I believe that all issues are now resolved and I
> > estimate we will
> > > Ron> have a revised MIB by early next week.
> > >
> > > I did run the MIB through smidiff yesterday (a tool which
> > computes the
> > > changes between two MIB versions) and I found some things I
> > wanted to
> > > share.
> > >
> > > - There are some changes which, if you take the rules
> very strictly,
> > > can turn compliant implementations to be non-compliant,
> > even though
> > > the document says:
> > >
> > > This draft supercedes and replaces RFC 1759. However, a
> > compliant
> >
> > I would also change "daft" in "document" so the text is still
> > valid when
> > it becomes an RFC.
> >
> > WG>> This is a very good suggestion and will be changed.
> > **************************************************************
> > *********
> >
> > > implementation of RFC 1759 is also compliant with this
> > draft. The
> > > following changes to RFC 1759 are included:
> > >
> > > For example, prtConsoleLightIndex changed from Integer32
> > (0..65535)
> > > to Integer32 (1..65535). Perhaps this just fixes a typo in the
> > > original MIB - but it would be worthwhile to list
> changes such as
> > > this explicitely.
> > >
> > > RB>> This was definitely a typo, since index values are
> > never zero.
> > > I will add this (and two other similar changes) to section 4.
> > >
> > Such changes would be good to list in the REVISION clause as well
> >
> > WG>> We will add as suggested and review the remaining changes to
> > determine if any others should also be included.
> > **************************************************************
> > *********
> >
> > > Also, prtInputDefaultIndex changed from Integer32 (1..65535) to
> > > Integer32 and prtMarkerColorantValue changed from (SIZE
> > (0..63)) to
> > > (SIZE (0..255)).
> > >
> > > RB>> prtInputDefaultIndex was also a typo, since this
> object allows
> > > -1 per the description clause. This has been corrected.
> > >
> > It seems to me that maybe it should be:
> >
> > Integer32 ( -1 | 1..65535)
> >
> > You're no allowing any negative value, are you?
> >
> > And how about the size extension?
> >
> > WG>> In reviewing this issue we have determined that this is not a
> > change compatible with RFC 1759, since the text in the
> > description clause that indicates the use of -1 was not in
> > RFC 1759. The WG has agreed to remove this added text and
> > restore the range to (1..65535) as in RFC 1759.
> > **************************************************************
> > *********
> >
> > > - The prtChannelIndex and prtAlertIndex both have a range
> > > (1..2147483647) addded while all the other *Index
> objects seem to
> > > prefer (1..65535). The wider range is from an architectural
> > > standpoint better, but for consistency, the smaller
> range might be
> > > better. What did people actually implement?
> > >
> > > RB>> I will change both to the smaller value to be consistent.
> > >
> > And the WG explicitly agrees with all this, right?
> > If so, then I am OK with that, assuming that this is based on
> > implementation experience.
> >
> > In RFC1759 there was no limit, so (1..2147483647) was the range of
> > valid values there.
> >
> > WG>> The range for prtChannelIndex is OK as (1..65535). No printer
> > will ever require more than this amount. However, we
> have found
> > a problem with prtAlertIndex and will change this back to
> > (1..2147483647).
> >
> > There is also a compatibility problem with the smaller
> range for
> > prtStorageRefIndex and prtDeviceRefIndex. To agree
> with RFC 2790
> > (HR MIB) these will be changed to (0..2147483647). This change
> > will also be noted in the REVISION clause.
> > **************************************************************
> > *********
> >
> > > - Should you not use InterfaceIndexOrZero in
> prtChannelIfIndex? The
> > > description also refers to RFC 1213 where it should refer to the
> > > IF-MIB, currently in RFC 2863. This creates a dependency
> > but I think
> > > this is fine as the IF-MIB is already at Draft.
> > >
> > > RB>> Use of RFC 2863 was previously review by the WG and it
> > was felt
> > > this was likely to result in too many additional
> dependencies.
> > > Use of InterfaceIndexOrZero also has similar problems.
> > We would
> > > prefer to not change since there have not been any
> > implementation
> > > problems reported in this area.
> > >
> > Ron... it seems that InterfaceIndexOrZero is exactly what you want.
> > It is the most up to date way on how we specify these things
> > these days.
> > The TC is an Integer32 underneath that allows exactly the
> values that
> > you want. And so there is no change on the protocol on the wire or
> > on the data types that you send/receive.
> > I strongly recommend to use InterfaceIndexOrZero.
> >
> > WG>> We have reviewed this issue again and agree to change
> the SYNTAX
> > clause to InterfaceIndexOrZero. Our previous concerns
> were based
> > on this "tied" into RFC 2863. As long as we do not have to
> > require RFC 2863, this is acceptable. (Most printer
> manufactures
> > have incorporated purchased IP stacks and the cost and
> logistics
> > of upgrading these stacks would be prohibitive at this time.)
> > **************************************************************
> > *********
> >
> > Right now you agreed to recycle at PS. So it is a good time
> > to do this.
> > By the time you ever get to Draft or (full) Standard, MIB
> II (RFC1213)
> > may have gone to historic, and then you need to change anyway.
> >
> > Bert
> >
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Jan 16 2002 - 10:40:36 EST