Some more editorial corrections to version 0.83. (I have more comments and
will try to get the remainder published tonight.)
1. Section 3.3.4, first paragraph (page 24):
Add to end of the paragraph: "Attributes that allow duplicates are
indicated in the appropriate attribute description."
Then the last two paragraphs are no longer required. (The first
is a redundant example of an intensive attribute.) The two
paragraphs to be deleted are:
"As another example of an intensive attribute that can have multiple
entries, if a document or job uses multiple types of media, there SHALL
be only one row in the jmAttributeTable for each media type, not one row
for each document that uses that medium type.
On the other hand, if a job contains two documents of the same name,
there can be separate rows for the documentName attribute with the same
name, since a document name is an extensive attribute. The
specification indicates that the values NEED NOT be unique for such
'MULTI-ROW: attributes'"
2. Section 3.3.5 (page 24), the following change is suggested. ("that
submitted the job" seems to obvious to include.)
Change: "(1) requested by the client (or intervening server) in the job
submission protocol that submitted the job..."
To: "(1) requested by the client (or intervening server) in the job
submission protocol..."
3. section 3.6.1.2 (page 27), the following is confusing:
"Those textual conventions that are labeled "[same enum values as IPP]"
have the same enum values as the indicated IPP Job attribute. When IPP
registers additional values, those values shall be simultaneously
registered by IANA for use with the Job Monitoring MIB textual-
convention, so that the enum values stay in lock step between the IPP
protocol and the Job Monitoring MIB."
Proposed new wording:
"For those textual conventions that have the same enum values as the
indicated IPP Job attribute, additional values shall be simultaneously
registered by IANA for use with both IPP and the Job Monitoring MIB."
4. In the description for JmJobStateTC (page 40), there is a state "other".
"other(1),
The job state is not one of the defined states."
I thought we had covered all possible states with the 7 primary plus the
JmJobStateReasons. Why do we need other? Did we not accomplish what was
claimed?
5. In the description for JmAttributeTypeTC (page 43) the paragraph:
"In the following descriptions of each attribute, the tags:
'INTEGER:' or 'OCTETS:' specify whether the value SHALL be
represented in the jmAttributeValueAsInteger or the
jmAttributeValueAsOctets object, or both, respectively."
This information seems to be adequately presented in the previous
paragraphs and I recommend that it be deleted.
6. Also in the description for JmAttributeTypeTC (page 43) the paragraph:
"The standard attribute types defined so far are:"
This sounds like the MIB document is not final, I suggest:
"The standard attribute types defined at the time of completion of
this document:"
7. In the description for serverAssignedJobName (22) (page 45), the text
"...that the agent is providing access to with this MIB." is obvious
from the context and should be deleted.
More to come...
Ron Bergman
Dataproducts Corp.