PMP Mail Archive: RE: PMP> Comments on Printer Port Monitor

PMP Mail Archive: RE: PMP> Comments on Printer Port Monitor

RE: PMP> Comments on Printer Port Monitor MIB 1.0 working draft d ated March 21, 2005

From: McDonald, Ira (imcdonald@sharplabs.com)
Date: Fri Mar 25 2005 - 13:30:32 EST

  • Next message: Dennis Carney: "RE: PMP> Comments on Printer Port Monitor MIB 1.0 working draft d ated March 21, 2005"

    Hi Bill,
     
    Because the MS tools use the value of 'hrDeviceIndex' to find and display
    status for each SINGLE port (one print protocol bound to one network or
    local hardware interface).
     
    There's nothing wrong with having more than one INSTANCE of the Printer
    MIB (with different high-order 'hrDeviceIndex') displayed on a network
    system
    for this purpose.
     
    Otherwise (using a single common 'hrDeviceIndex') if any port protocol is
    down, they'll all appear to be down. The MS tools do NOT inquire of the
    Channel table in the Printer MIB for port-by-port status. And Mike Fenelon
    has indicated that that's not changing any time soon.
     
    Please don't shoot the messenger - this design worked great for outboard
    external network adaptors - it's admittedly cumbersome for a network printer
    itself.
     
    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: Bergman, Ron [mailto:Ron.Bergman@rpsa.ricoh.com]
    Sent: Friday, March 25, 2005 12:36 PM
    To: McDonald, Ira; Adams, Charles A; pmp@pwg.org
    Subject: RE: PMP> Comments on Printer Port Monitor MIB 1.0 working draft
    dated March 21, 2005

    Ira,
     
    I don't understand your response. If this is true, then this is not
    hrDeviceIndex as used by the printer and must be clearly indicated
    as such and should not be called hrDeviceIndex.
     
    Why does the index for the table not satisfy this requirement?
     
        Ron
      _____

    From: McDonald, Ira [mailto:imcdonald@sharplabs.com]
    Sent: Fri 3/25/2005 8:14 AM
    To: Bergman, Ron; McDonald, Ira; Adams, Charles A; pmp@pwg.org
    Subject: RE: PMP> Comments on Printer Port Monitor MIB 1.0 working draft
    dated March 21, 2005

    Hi Ron,

    Going all the way back to the first Microsoft draft and ever since,
    it's clear that the MS "port" entry has to have a separate device
    index for each port, because the 'hr...' status objects have to be
    separate for EACH port.

    Remember the main MS model is NOT an embedded printer. It's either
    an external network adaptor or a spooler. In both of these cases,
    only ONE protocol is being exposed fore each "port".

    This isn't a new restriction.

    In the case of an external network adaptor, each "port" is literally
    a different direct-connect printer.

    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: Bergman, Ron [ mailto:Ron.Bergman@rpsa.ricoh.com
    <mailto:Ron.Bergman@rpsa.ricoh.com> ]
    Sent: Thursday, March 24, 2005 3:03 PM
    To: McDonald, Ira; Adams, Charles A; pmp@pwg.org
    Subject: RE: PMP> Comments on Printer Port Monitor MIB 1.0 working draft
    dated March 21, 2005

    Ira,

    Regarding your comment:

    2. ppmPortHrDeviceIndex - This seems to imply an hrDeviceTable entry is
    needed for each port on the system. Is this the expected behavior?
    Or is this just the hrDeviceIndex of the printer?
    Or is the the hrDeviceIndex for the network card?

    <ira> For the Microsoft tool (TCPMon), EACH port (channel) has to
    have a separate 'hrDeviceIndex' - this is different than typical
    Printer MIB implementations, but it's a Microsoft tool limitation.
    Note that Microsoft TCPMon _only_ supports LPR and Raw ports (no
    other protocol is supported or contemplated according to co-editor
    Mike Fenelon from the Microsoft Longhorn printing team), so this
    only means two 'hrDeviceIndex' values at most (for each printer).
    </ira>

    I do not recall ever hearing this. It certainly is not clear from
    the MIB text (see below) that this is the case. If this is true
    then it is not really hrDeviceIndex that is indicated but is just
    ppmPortIndex.

    Also, for the printers I work with there will be a minimum of 10
    ports reported. If IPP is enable, there will be a minimum of 15.
    The maximum number will be 192.

            Ron

    From the MIB:
    ppmPortHrDeviceIndex OBJECT-TYPE
        SYNTAX Integer32 (0..2147483647)
        MAX-ACCESS read-only
        STATUS current
        DESCRIPTION
    "The value of 'hrDeviceIndex' in the IETF Host Resources MIB
    (RFC 1514/2790), to be used for status queries for this port if
    the value of 'ppmPortSnmpStatusQueryEnabled' is 'true'.

    If this object is zero, then monitoring applications MUST NOT
    attempt status queries for this port in the IETF Host Resources
    MIB (RFC 1514/2790) and/or IETF Printer MIB (RFC 1759/3805)."
        REFERENCE
    "hrDeviceStatus, hrPrinterStatus, hrPrinterDetectedErrorState i
    n IETF Host Resources MIB (RFC 1514/2790).
    prtChannelStatus in IETF Printer MIB (RFC 1759/3805)."
        DEFVAL { 0 } -- no host device index
        ::= { ppmPortEntry 7 }



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Mar 25 2005 - 13:34:54 EST