PMP Mail Archive: RE: PMP> Draft MIB comments

PMP Mail Archive: RE: PMP> Draft MIB comments

RE: PMP> Draft MIB comments

From: Bergman, Ron (Ron.Bergman@rpsa.ricoh.com)
Date: Mon Jan 17 2005 - 21:10:16 EST

  • Next message: Haapanen, Tom: "RE: PMP> Draft MIB comments"

    Hi Tom,

    Good questions. See my responses in-line.

            Ron

    -----Original Message-----
    From: pmp-owner@pwg.org [mailto:pmp-owner@pwg.org]On Behalf Of Haapanen,
    Tom
    Sent: Monday, January 17, 2005 5:39 PM
    To: pmp@pwg.org
    Subject: PMP> Draft MIB comments

    Everyone,

    Here is my initial set of comments on the draft Print Port Monitor MIB.
    This is based largely on our experience of developing port monitors (and
    equivalent modules on other platforms) to communicate with a myriad of
    devices.

    So, in no particular order ...

    - Shouldn't the ppmPortTable include a URI object for IPP printers?
    Otherwise there is no way to know how to connect to an IPP device. What
    about SMB share names or AppleTalk names?

    <Ron> The scope was limited to LPR and TCP Sockets since those were the
          protocols in Microsoft's request. Although, in our discussions it
          was agreed that it should be open to all protocols. IPP could be
          reported in the ppmPortProtocolType and the ppmPortProtocolPortNumber
          containing the port used. In discussions, Microsoft did not see a
          a need so it was not described as a possibility.

          The SMB and AppleTalk names are normally broadcast so I am not sure
          why they would be needed, especially since they are now being used
          less and less. Using the ppmPortLprQueueName (with a rename) would
          allow support of these protocols. If you feel strongly about these
          a simple modification and rewrite of the descriptions would provide
          the support.

    - For LPR devices, I would like to see an object that specifies whether the
    device accept source ports outside the RFC range. Most devices, but not
    all, do today, and this can really help throughput with small documents.

    <Ron> Are there printers that do not support any source port? If no,
          this would be a good additional MIB object.

    - What would be the expected behaviour if there are multiple ports of the
    same type? For example, Fiery controllers typically have three LPR queues
    -- would it not be beneficial to be able to publish all three, and to
    describe their behaviour?

    <Ron> There is no limit to the number of ports or queues that can be
          reported in the MIB. It is an SNMP table and supports large
          number of entries. I assume the Fiery controller LPR queues
          each have a unique name.

    Tom



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Jan 17 2005 - 21:12:02 EST