PMP Mail Archive: RE: PMP> Draft MIB comments

PMP Mail Archive: RE: PMP> Draft MIB comments

RE: PMP> Draft MIB comments

From: McDonald, Ira (imcdonald@sharplabs.com)
Date: Tue Jan 18 2005 - 16:46:37 EST

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

    Hi,

    Okay, then I'll update the MIB and the conformance macros
    (for the new object) and repost by sometime tomorrow.

    Cheers,
    - Ira

    Ira McDonald (Musician / Software Architect)
    Blue Roof Music / High North Inc
    PO Box 221 Grand Marais, MI 49839
    phone: +1-906-494-2434
    email: imcdonald@sharplabs.com

    -----Original Message-----
    From: Mike Fenelon [mailto:mfenelon@windows.microsoft.com]
    Sent: Tuesday, January 18, 2005 3:05 PM
    To: Bergman, Ron; Haapanen, Tom; McDonald, Ira; pmp@pwg.org
    Subject: RE: PMP> Draft MIB comments

    I am fine with the proposed changes. Happy to expand the uses as long as
    it doesn't change the underlying usefulness.

    Mike Fenelon
    Microsoft

    -----Original Message-----
    From: pmp-owner@pwg.org [mailto:pmp-owner@pwg.org] On Behalf Of Bergman,
    Ron
    Sent: Tuesday, January 18, 2005 11:53 AM
    To: Haapanen, Tom; McDonald, Ira; pmp@pwg.org
    Subject: RE: PMP> Draft MIB comments

    Tom,

    I just spoke with Ira and he agrees to support the recommended changes.
     1) Rework ppmPortLprQueueName to possibly ppmPortServiceNameOrURL.
     2) Add a new object such as ppmPortSourcePortsRestricted.

    That should cover all your listed requirements (even AppleTalk and SMB).
    IPDS would be covered by the Port Number. Please let us know ASAP if
    this is not adequate.

    I haven't heard from Microsoft folks yet but I don't believe they will
    object.

            Regards,
            Ron

    -----Original Message-----
    From: Haapanen, Tom [mailto:tomh@waterloo.equitrac.com]
    Sent: Tuesday, January 18, 2005 10:03 AM
    To: 'McDonald, Ira'; pmp@pwg.org
    Cc: Bergman, Ron
    Subject: RE: PMP> Draft MIB comments

    Ira,

    I'm happy to work within those deadlines. And I am planning to attend
    the
    April meeting as well. I do regret not finding out about the initiative
    earlier, but it's unfortunately too late to do anything about that now.

    If I understand correctly, the goal of the port MIB is to enable
    automatic
    printer installation -- something both Microsoft and we want to be able
    to
    accomplish. I also understand that duplication with the printer MIB is
    undesirable. And in that case ...

    ... would it not make sense to remove the LPR queue name from the port
    MIB?

    ... and will the vendors be willing to update their printer MIB support
    at
    the same time as they implement the port MIB? If they will not be, that
    will limit the usefulness of the port MIB.

    Tom

    -----Original Message-----
    From: McDonald, Ira [mailto:imcdonald@sharplabs.com]
    Sent: Tuesday, 18 January 2005 12:45
    To: 'Haapanen, Tom'; McDonald, Ira; pmp@pwg.org
    Cc: 'Bergman, Ron'
    Subject: RE: PMP> Draft MIB comments

    Hi Tom,

    Of course Equitrac's input merits consideration!!!

    Unfortunately I guess you missed the previous drafts and discussion
    since
    last November. Microsoft has asked to bring this MIB to content closure
    within the next month at the latest, in order to move it into their
    Longhorn
    printing planning cycle.

    By PWG Process v2.0 rules, we must bring a 'last call'
    to closure during a PWG face-to-face (next one in April).
    Therefore, we have a pretty hard target of entering 'last call' no later
    than 1 March 2005 (to allow an extra long final review period for
    implementors).

    If more info is needed for LPR in 'prtChannelInformation', then the
    appropriate fix is to update 'PrtChannelTypeTC'
    in the IANA registry with the new keywords and info, not to expand the
    'competition' between the Port MIB and Printer MIB v2.

    Updating the IANA registry is simple and straightforward (the PWG is the
    responsible authority for revisions).

    I personally regret the LPR-specific info in the Port MIB, but it was
    proposed originally and requested by Microsoft in their prototype last
    November.

    I personally consider that adding more protocol-specific info to the
    Port
    MIB is a very bad idea - it will lead to inconsistent info with Printer
    MIB
    v2 - and it will lead to confusion in the printing industry, by implying
    that it is less important for vendors to correctly and promply upgrade
    to
    Printer MIB v2 (which has other quite important objects added).

    Cheers,
    - Ira

    Ira McDonald (Musician / Software Architect) Blue Roof Music / High
    North
    Inc PO Box 221 Grand Marais, MI 49839
    phone: +1-906-494-2434
    email: imcdonald@sharplabs.com



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Jan 18 2005 - 16:48:52 EST