>> Pages 14-15:
>> The optional Extended Finisher Device Group should be defined as a N=
EW
>> table that AUGMENTS the Finisher Device Group table. The printer MIB=
is
>> the only MIB I know of that defines subsets of an ENTRY sequence as
>> optional. This is incorrect MIB design, and we should not repeat thi=
s
>> error this just because it was done in the printer MIB.
>>
>This was patterned after the Printer MIB, since it is intended that th=
e
>Finisher MIB be combined into the Printer MIB, someday. I was not awa=
re
>that this is incorrect MIB design. So, should we match the format of =
the
>Printer MIB and, if the documents are eventually integrated, they are
>uniform? Or, do we follow your proposed structure? What about SNMPv1=
>compatibility with Augmenting?
... might be to AVOID the use of optional groups, altogether. I'd like =
to
try to only define the subset we would consider mandatory (useful) righ=
t
from the start, if possible. Printer MIB optional objects have me somew=
hat
disillusioned.
Harry Lewis - IBM Printing Systems
=