PMP Mail Archive: PMP> RE: Response to Printer MIB Comments

PMP Mail Archive: PMP> RE: Response to Printer MIB Comments

PMP> RE: Response to Printer MIB Comments of 15 Nov, 2001

From: Ron.Bergman@Hitachi-hkis.com
Date: Wed Jan 16 2002 - 10:49:56 EST

  • Next message: ch99118i8@126.com: "ϵ 9:1:59:546"
  • Next message: copy_dvd@webmasterdirect.org: "You need this DVD Burner and is almost FREE"

    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 Fltstrm
    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