Hi Bert and Juergen,
My apologies. Ron has already correctly restored _all_ of the original
RFC 1759 textual conventions with status DEPRECATED immediately
below each new 'Prt...' TC (so seeing the relation is easy) in
his next working draft (soon to be released).
Ron had intended to follow Bert's and Dave Harrington's advice not to
remove any previously defined (RFC 1759) textual convention.
And we prefer to use DEPRECATED (rather than OBSOLETE) because we
wish to recognize that implementations or Printer MIB v1 (RFC 1759)
continue to be used and are the basis of most OS vendor and tools
vendor monitoring of network printers, at present.
Thanks to all of you for keeping us straight on SMIv2 best practice.
- Ira McDonald
High North Inc
From: Wijnen, Bert (Bert) [mailto:email@example.com]
Sent: Wednesday, September 18, 2002 6:59 AM
To: Juergen Schoenwaelder; firstname.lastname@example.org
Cc: Ron.Bergman@Hitachi-hkis.com; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org;
email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com;
firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org
Subject: RE: Printer/Finisher MIB and IANA enumerations
> Ira> Should we fix the name (add 'Prt' prefix) of this last TC?
> If you think consistency is important and you want people to use the
> Prt* TCs,, you can can formally introduce a PrtPresentOnOff TC with
> STATUS current while leaving the old PresentOnOff TC with STATUS
> deprecated in the MIB. This way, nothing breaks and you can transition
> to all prefixed TCs.
As a matter of fact, to better follow the SMI rules, the old non-prefixed
TCs probably should all have stayed in the MIB with status deprecated.
Or possibly even obsoleted if you want to give stronger message for people
to switch to the new TCs.
> Juergen Schoenwaelder
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Sep 18 2002 - 12:53:19 EDT