IPP> NOT - Missing bindings in SNMP traps for Jobs [oops]

IPP> NOT - Missing bindings in SNMP traps for Jobs [oops]

IPP> NOT - Missing bindings in SNMP traps for Jobs [oops]

McDonald, Ira imcdonald at sharplabs.com
Tue Apr 4 18:14:11 EDT 2000

Hi Dennis,

I now have egg on my face.

While writing a white paper for Sharp on implementation of
the PWG Job Mon MIB (RFC 2707) and the job trap extensions,
I suddenly realized that I made a mistake in mappings in the
SNMP traps.

So at least one more revision of the job trap extensions
should be released, because the CORRECT mappings are:

Job trap binding            PWG Job Mon MIB object/attribute
---------------------       --------------------------------
jmEventJobKOctets           jmJobKOctetsPerCopyRequested (object)
                            + jobCopiesRequested (attribute)
jmEventJobImpressions       jmJobImpressionsPerCopyRequested (object)
                            + jobCopiesRequested (attribute)

>From which it follows that two new Job Completed and Job
Progress trap bindings should be added (groan):

Job trap binding            PWG Job Mon MIB attribute
---------------------       -------------------------
jmEventJobCopiesRequested   jobCopiesRequested (attribute)
jmEventJobCopiesCompleted   jobCopiesCompleted (attribute)

And the orphaned Job trap bindings (RECOMMENDED in the
DESCRIPTION clauses currently) should be moved to the
MANDATORY OBJECTS clauses (with suitable default values):

Job trap binding

Comments, anyone?

- Ira McDonald, consulting architect at Xerox and Sharp
  High North Inc

-----Original Message-----
From: McDonald, Ira 
Sent: Monday, April 03, 2000 9:41 AM
To: 'dcarney at us.ibm.com'; McDonald, Ira; 'ipp at pwg.org'
Cc: harryl at us.ibm.com
Subject: RE: IPP> FW: Slides for Job Mon MIB trap extensions for PWG-C

Hi Dennis,                             Monday (3 April 2000)

(I've copied the IPP list on this reply, because the thread is
probably of general interest)

Actually these three attributes in are RECOMMENDED (SHOULD) in
the SNMP trap bindings and not merely OPTIONAL (MAY).

They are only OPTIONAL (MAY) in the IPP Event Notification spec
(8 March 2000) in the table on page 42.

For the SNMP trap bindings, I couldn't reasonably make these
attributes MANDATORY (explicit in the OBJECTS clause) because
there are NO underlying attributes currently defined in the PWG
Job Monitoring MIB v1.0 ('xxx-completed' attributes are defined,
but the 'xxx-requested' ones are not, except for the one
'jobKOctetsTransferred' which should have the same value as
IPP's 'job-k-octets').

I'm trying to propose new notification groups and object groups
for addition to the PWG Job Mon MIB.

Are you suggesting that these missing job attributes be defined
in a revised PWG Job Mon MIB?

The real problem with gas gauges is that while job size in
k-octets of raw PDL may be known, job size in impressions
is almost never known before rendering.  Further most PDL
interpreters I've seen don't even have hooks for reporting
progress out to the job scheduler/SNMP agent interface.  You
can't instrument what doesn't exist.  Maybe IBM writes their
own PDL interpreters?  Most printer vendors buy them from

- Ira McDonald, consulting architect at Sharp and Xerox
  High North Inc

-----Original Message-----
From: dcarney at us.ibm.com [mailto:dcarney at us.ibm.com]
Sent: Friday, March 31, 2000 4:05 PM
To: McDonald, Ira
Cc: harryl at us.ibm.com
Subject: Re: IPP> FW: Slides for Job Mon MIB trap extensions for PWG-C


I'm sorry to be coming in late in the game here, but I have looked at your
proposal at a high-level and I'm wondering if the "gas gauge" idea has been

Specifically, in
page 42, attributes 'job-k-octets', 'job-impressions', and
'job-media-sheets' are optional on 'job-progress' as well as
'job-completed' notifications.  I remember we (you and I on the mailing
list) had a spirited discussion about this, but in the end, the attributes
got added to the notifications.

However, in
page 14, those same "attributes" are missing from the jmJobProgressV2Event.

Is there something I'm missing (it wouldn't be surprising since I have been
absent from all the discussions of this!)?

In any case, I would think that if the PWG IPP group decided to put these
attributes in IPP notifications, they would also decide to put the same
attributes in SNMP traps meant to convey IPP notifications.  No?


More information about the Ipp mailing list