Tom, ... why can't an implementation that does not have the job mib just say
"unknown" for the output bin.
Wouldn't this, indeed, be the case?
Harry Lewis - IBM Printing Systems
------- Forwarded by Harry Lewis/Boulder/IBM on 05/07/97 12:07 PM --------
jmp-owner at pwg.org
05/07/97 04:33 AM
Please respond to jmp-owner at pwg.org @ internet
To: Harry Lewis/Boulder/IBM at IBMUS
cc: JMP at pwg.org @ internet
Subject: Re: JMP> Output Bin Problems
At 17:07 05/01/97 PDT, Harry Lewis wrote:
>Classification:
>>Tom, a couple comments related to Output Bin and the Job MIB using draft v.81.
>> 1. Pg. 35 jobStateAssociatedValue is INTEGER. The Associated Attribute for
>state COMPLETED cannot be outputBinName, as you have specified. I had specified
>outputBinIndex, not Name.
I agree I created a problem. We can't fit an OctetString into 32-bits.
But changing the jobStateAssociatedValue to use outputBinIndex
brings up another issue, which I'm calling issue 73:
Issue 73 - If outputBinIndex is made mandatory, because the AssociatedValue
object and attribute require it, but an implementation doesn't have the
Printer MIB, the agent has to put 0 as the value. Should we add one more
attribute: outputBinNumber, which is just a number, not an index into the
Printer MIB? If we do, which should be mandatory? Just one more reason to
get rid of the AssociatedValue object and attribute, which is forcing us to
pick a particular outputBin implementation and make it mandatory. If we got
rid of the AssociatedValue object/attribute, we could forget about making
any of the 3 outputBinName, outputBinNumber, or outputBinIndex attribute
mandatory.
If we get rid of the AssociatedValue object/attribute, then we don't
need to add the outputBinNumber attribute either, since an implementation
can just put in the ASCII digits for the bin number into the outputBinName
attribute.
Harry Lewis - IBM Printing Systems