PMP Mail Archive: RE: PMP> Posted Last Call draft of Port Mo

PMP Mail Archive: RE: PMP> Posted Last Call draft of Port Mo

RE: PMP> Posted Last Call draft of Port Mon MIB (10 March 2005)

From: Wijnen, Bert (Bert) (bwijnen@lucent.com)
Date: Thu Mar 10 2005 - 14:53:01 EST

  • Next message: Mike Fenelon: "RE: PMP> Posted Last Call draft of Port Mon MIB (10 March 2005)"

    Inline

    > -----Original Message-----
    > From: McDonald, Ira [mailto:imcdonald@sharplabs.com]
    > Sent: Thursday, March 10, 2005 20:19
    > To: 'Wijnen, Bert (Bert)'; McDonald, Ira; 'pmp@pwg.org'; 'pwg@pwg.org'
    > Subject: RE: PMP> Posted Last Call draft of Port Mon MIB (10
    > March 2005)
    >
    >
    > Hi Bert,
    >
    > I knew I'd forgotten to fix the four-digit years and that
    > darn REVISION clause. The uses of DisplayString were all
    > intentional for strings that can't reasonably be non-ASCII.
    >
    Then it makes sense. Migth add a comment about that so that
    a novice (not as much involved) reader understands

    > Several years ago, the SNMPv3 WG wasted a lot of time finding
    > out that using non-ASCII strings in community names mostly
    > broke existing SNMP libraries - I could certainly change
    > that one - the 'ppmPortSnmpCommunityName' object was from
    > the original Microsoft request - these printers and external
    > network adapters are all running SNMPv1 with no security,
    > but they seem to use a different read community name for
    > each printer port - we can't really throw out the Microsoft
    > requirements, because they're the motivating force for the
    > MIB.
    >

    Well, there maybe broken SNMP implementation that only accept ASCII for
    community string. But I think you are now swinging the other way to
    not accept compliant SNMP implementations that DO accept non-ascii
    charatcers in community string.

    In any event, I find continued use of community string very scary.
    Too much opportunity for people to break in.

    > I agree with your suggestion about SnmpAdminString. I was
    > following the usage in the just-published Printer MIB v2
    > (RFC 3805) where we were told to use a dedicated TC whose
    > semantics were that a specific SNMP object contained the
    > language tag (same as here). Should we change these fields
    > to SnmpAdminString?
    >
    I just posted what I noticed. I cannot mandate use of SnmpAdminString.
    As long as you do things consciously and as long as they are not
    broken, then it is you (and your group) who decides.

    > We'll probably accept your comments as Last Call comments,
    > because we're on a short fuse to start our PWG Last Call.
    >
    OK

    Bert
    > 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: Wijnen, Bert (Bert) [mailto:bwijnen@lucent.com]
    > Sent: Thursday, March 10, 2005 11:47 AM
    > To: 'McDonald, Ira'; 'pmp@pwg.org'; 'pwg@pwg.org'
    > Subject: RE: PMP> Posted Last Call draft of Port Mon MIB (10
    > March 2005)
    >
    >
    > Not sure which level of SMICng you tried, but I get:
    >
    > C:\bwijnen\smicng\work>smicmfm wd-pmpportmib10-20050310_mib.mi2
    > E: f(wd-pmpportmib10-20050310_mib.mi2), (12,18)
    > Date/time(0503100000Z)
    > must have
    > a year greater than 89
    > ** 1 error and 0 warnings in parsing
    >
    > Years (in LAST-UPDATE and REVISION clauses are 4 digits (yyyy)
    >
    > I also get:
    >
    > C:\bwijnen\smicng\work>smicng wd-pmpportmib10-20050310_mib.inc
    > W: f(wd-pmpportmib10-20050310_mib.mi2), (43,21) The first
    > revision should
    > match
    > the last update for MODULE-IDENTITY ppmMIB
    >
    > *** 0 errors and 1 warning in parsing
    >
    > And... in general, a REVISION clause is normally only present for each
    > revision
    > that was actually formally published. Not sure how it works in PMP
    > organisation.
    > In IETF, revisions in various Internte-Drafts will not have a separate
    > REVISION
    > clause, only revisions that are published as RFCs.
    >
    > I did a very quick browse.
    >
    > I wonder why you do not use SnmpAdminString (RFC3411) instead
    > of defining
    > your
    > own TC.
    >
    > I see: ppmPortProtocolPortNumber and wonder if you not better use
    > the InetPortNumber TC from RFC4001
    >
    > This:
    >
    > ppmPortSnmpCommunityName OBJECT-TYPE
    > SYNTAX DisplayString (SIZE (0..255))
    > MAX-ACCESS read-only
    > STATUS current
    > DESCRIPTION
    > "The SNMP read community name, specified in US-ASCII,
    > for access
    > to the printer status information in IETF MIB-II (RFC 1213),
    > IETF Host Resources MIB (RFC 1514/2790), and IETF Printer MIB
    > (RFC 1759/3805) for this port.
    >
    > If this object is empty, then the SNMP read community name for
    > this port MUST default to 'public'."
    > REFERENCE
    > "See: 'snmpCommunityName' in SNMP Community MIB (RFC 3584)."
    > DEFVAL { ''H } -- no SNMP read community name
    > ::= { ppmPortEntry 7 }
    >
    > seems pretty INSECURE, plus, a valid SNMP communityName is allowewd to
    > contain non-ASCII characters. So I find this very questional stuff
    >
    > I am also worried somewhat by the use of all the DisplaySTring types
    > (US NVT ASCII). Does not seem to be of current time anymore and
    > certainly does not seem to be future proof to me
    >
    > Just my initial 2 cents
    >
    > Bert
    > > -----Original Message-----
    > > From: pmp-owner@pwg.org [mailto:pmp-owner@pwg.org]On Behalf
    > > Of McDonald,
    > > Ira
    > > Sent: Thursday, March 10, 2005 16:56
    > > To: 'pmp@pwg.org'; 'pwg@pwg.org'
    > > Subject: PMP> Posted Last Call draft of Port Mon MIB (10 March 2005)
    > >
    > >
    > > Hi folks, Thursday (10
    > > March 2005)
    > >
    > > Mike Fenelon converted the PWG Printer Port Monitor MIB to
    > MS Word and
    > > added PWG boilerplate for v1.0 - status of 'Stable' - now posted at:
    > >
    > > ftp://ftp.pwg.org/pub/pwg/pmp/wd/wd-pmpportmib10-20050310.doc
    > > - MS Word document source
    > >
    > > ftp://ftp.pwg.org/pub/pwg/pmp/wd/wd-pmpportmib10-20050310.mib
    > > - ASN.1 MIB source - SMIv2 format
    > >
    > > ftp://ftp.pwg.org/pub/pwg/pmp/wd/wd-pmpportmib10-20050310.pdf
    > > - Acrobat PDF - PWG boilerplate, introduction, model, references
    > >
    > > This MIB compiles without warnings in both Epilogue Emissary
    > > and SMICng.
    > >
    > > We will start a PWG Last Call on this document within the
    > > next week, to
    > > span the PWG face-to-face meeting in Tokyo in April and
    > > finish during a
    > > special PWG plenary telecon the following week.
    > >
    > > Cheers,
    > > - Editors of PWG Printer Port Monitor MIB
    > > o Mike Fenelon (Microsoft)
    > > o Ivan Pavicevic (Microsoft)
    > > o Ron Bergman (Ricoh)
    > > o Ira McDonald (High North Inc)
    > >
    > > ----------------------------------------
    > > [change log - to be deleted before Candidate Standard publication]
    > >
    > > 8 March 2005 (v1.0)
    > > - Converted to official PWG working draft
    > > - Expanded the background section
    > >
    >



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Mar 10 2005 - 14:53:28 EST