PMP Mail Archive: PMP> RE: FIN> finisher mib integration

PMP Mail Archive: PMP> RE: FIN> finisher mib integration

PMP> RE: FIN> finisher mib integration into up3i

From: Bergman, Ron (Ron.Bergman@rpsa.ricoh.com)
Date: Fri Jun 17 2005 - 17:18:39 EDT

  • Next message: joseey666@yahoo.com: "Payment sent"

    Hi Andreas,

    Sorry for taking so long for an answer.

    As you can see from the previous responses, there is no need to implement
    the entire MIB. And there is also no need to wait for a new conformance
    document from the PWG. When you decide what makes sense please send the
    results to the PWG for review and we will then generate the appropriate
    document. It may be that you will encounter several different necessary
    configurations. We will accommodate whatever you define.

    In the mean time we will no doubt ponder how this new conformance statement(s)
    will be documented.

    We will also are willing to review any interium proposals as they are
    developed.

            Ron Bergman
            Ricoh Printing Systems America
            ron.bergman@rpsa.ricoh.com
            PWG SNMP MIBS Working Group Chairman

    -----Original Message-----
    From: fin-owner@pwg.org [mailto:fin-owner@pwg.org]On Behalf Of McDonald,
    Ira
    Sent: Tuesday, June 07, 2005 7:57 PM
    To: 'Wijnen, Bert (Bert)'; Hirn, Andreas; 'Harry Lewis'; McDonald, Ira
    Cc: 'fin@pwg.org'; 'pmp@pwg.org'; 'rbergma@hitachi-hkis.com';
    'technic@up3i.org'
    Subject: RE: FIN> finisher mib integration into up3i

    Hi,

    Thanks Bert for writing up the very response I wanted to send!

    However, I'd caution that this implies updating the Finisher MIB
    (RFC 3806) to ensrhine this cleanest solution (i.e., a better
    MODULE-COMPLIANCE macro) and there a few cycles in IEEE/ISTO PWG
    at present to revise IETF published MIBs (it took us seven years to
    get Printer MIB v2 published after the new objects were defined).

    I'd be happy to write up the ASN.1 and new body text as a proposal.

    Harry and Ron - this is a trivial piece of ASN.1. Should we consider
    a Finisher MIB v2 to clarify this important conformance detail?

    Cheers,
    - Ira (co-editor of Finisher MIB)

    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: Tuesday, June 07, 2005 5:09 AM
    > To: Hirn, Andreas; 'Harry Lewis'; 'McDonald, Ira'
    > Cc: 'fin@pwg.org'; 'pmp@pwg.org'; 'rbergma@hitachi-hkis.com';
    > 'technic@up3i.org'
    > Subject: RE: FIN> finisher mib integration into up3i
    >
    >
    > Inline
    >
    > > -----Original Message-----
    > > From: fin-owner@pwg.org [mailto:fin-owner@pwg.org]On Behalf Of Hirn,
    > > Andreas
    > > Sent: Tuesday, June 07, 2005 10:44
    > > To: 'Harry Lewis'; 'McDonald, Ira'
    > > Cc: Hirn, Andreas; 'fin@pwg.org'; 'pmp@pwg.org';
    > > 'rbergma@hitachi-hkis.com'; 'technic@up3i.org'
    > > Subject: FIN> finisher mib integration into up3i
    > >
    > >
    > > Hi Harry and Ira,
    > >
    > > here another question concerning finisher mib integration into up3i.
    > >
    > >
    > > Last time we decided, that finishing devices have to act as
    > stand alone
    > > devices. This means that they have to implement the printer
    > mib additionally
    > > to the finishing mib.
    > >
    > >
    > > The problem now is: The printer mib has mandatory tables
    > which are not
    > > present in some finishing devices. What should we do with
    > > these tables.
    > >
    >
    > You can (even in a separate document) define an additional
    > MODULE-COMPLIANCE
    > statement (for example name it :
    > prtMIBFinisherDeviceCompliance) and in that
    > statement you only list the groups that make sense for such a device.
    > A matter of getting consensus on in your wg. Finisher devices can then
    > claim the new compliance instead of the prMIB or prtMIB2
    > compliance that
    > they cannot achieve.
    >
    > Hope this helps,
    > Bert
    > >
    > > In the moment we think that the tables prtGeneralGroup,
    > > prtMediaPathGroup,prtConsoleGroup, prtAlertTableGroup have to
    > > be present in
    > > every finishing device.
    > >
    > > But not all finishers have the tables prtInputGroup, prtOutputGroup,
    > > prtMarkerGroup, prtChannelGroup, prtInterpreterGroup.
    > >
    > > We have some ideas what to do with these printer mib tables,
    > > which are not
    > > present in the finishing devices, but they all have some
    > > disadvantages:
    > >
    > > 1.) The tables can be leaved out.
    > > Disadvantage: Maybe not complient to the mib rules.
    > > 2.) A kind of dummy implementation could be provided.
    > > Disadvantage: Its not clear which values have to be used
    > > as dummies.
    > >
    > > What do you think about the problem. Is there a good solution?
    > >
    > > Best regards,
    > > Andreas Hirn
    > >
    > > _____________________________________
    > >
    > > Andreas Hirn
    > > Software Development
    > >
    > > OcÚ Printing Systems GmbH
    > > Siemensallee 2
    > > 85586 Poing, Germany
    > > Direct Dial +49-8121-72 4029
    > > Direct Fax +49-8121-72 31 73
    > > mailto: Andreas.Hirn@ops.de
    > > www.oce.com
    > >
    >



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Jun 17 2005 - 17:21:09 EDT