Note: Line numbers are from the .pdf version.
line 31: should be Dataproducts Corp.
line 36: Harry Lewis should be added to the list of authors.
lines 155-159: This is a repeat of the abstract and should be removed.
line 164: "withoutspooling" S/B "without spooling"
line 165: "comonly" S/B "commonly"
line 197: "will support" S/B "supports"
line 199: "shall support" S/B "supports"
line 202: "will provide" S/B "provides"
line 222: The table grid remains with no text. S/B removed.
line 223: S/B "2. Terminology and Job Model"
lines 234-242: This paragraph is very confusing. I propose-
"A JOB SET is a set of jobs that are queued and scheduled together
according to a specified scheduling algorithm for a specified device
or set of devices. For implementations that embed the SNMP agent in
the device, the MIB JOB SET normally defines all the jobs known to
the device. If implemented in a server for multiple devices,
each JOB SET would define a job queue for a specific device."
lines 251-252: Delete- "The client may or may not also use SNMP and the
Job Monitoring MIB to monitor jobs, depending upon implementation."
lines 266-268: Change to- "SPOOLING is the act of a DEVICE or SERVER
of accepting jobs and writing the jobs attributes and document data
on to a secondary storage."
lines 269-272: Change to- "Queuing is the act of a DEVICE or SERVER
of ordering (queuing) jobs for the purpose of scheduling the jobs
to be processed."
line 277: "monitorand" S/B "monitor and"
line 348: How will this table convert to text?
General comment: I am not positive, but I believed that a draft
document had to be in text format to be posted. If this is true,
it looks like there is a significant amount of work remaining
before this document can be submitted. Figure 1 especially!
Comments?
line 556: There is currently a discussion with respect to the Printer
MIB regarding Conformance statements. This section should "conform"
(no pun intended) to the final outcome in PMP.
line 712: Since we are not adding any new data types, is this section
necessary? I propose section 12 be removed.
line 1632: Appendices A, B, and C should eventually become a separate
RFC document. Should a note be added?
line 1679: This is good information, but should be pulled from the
document and included as a separate file on the ftp server.
More to come....
...Ron Bergman
Dataproducts Corp.