Harry Lewis - IBM Printing Systems
paulmo@microsoft.com on 06/18/98 12:51:11 PM
Please respond to paulmo@microsoft.com
To: rbergma@dpc.com, Harry Lewis/Boulder/IBM@ibmus
cc: fin@pwg.org
Subject: RE: FIN> On reading the FIN draft
I DO have the concern that we need to resolve the issues arounf SNMP vs=
IPP.
My main comment about attributes was saying that you have done a level =
shift
in the document. Most MIBS say - 'here is the set of attributes for obj=
ect
set XXX'. FIN has said 'here are some of the attributes for finishers, =
plus
here is a way of adding other attributes that we havent thought about y=
et'.
You have defined a generic extensibiity mechanism - this is more proper=
ly
done in the core SNMP document set - not in an individual MIB.
I expected to read in the FIN MIB the definition of ALL attributes for
finishers - they are not there (So where are they?). Compare this to 17=
59.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Harry Lewis [SMTP:harryl@us.ibm.com]
> Sent: Thursday, June 18, 1998 10:52 AM
> To: rbergma@dpc.com
> Cc: Paul Moore
> Subject: RE: FIN> On reading the FIN draft
>
> Ron - I got a bit behind... sorry I haven't jumped in... but your
> responses to
> Paul's concerns are excellent. Thanks. I too am glad that Paul has ta=
ken
> time
> to review our work.
>
> Paul has been a big advocate of SDP so he may be wishing we could hol=
d up
> FIN
> until the PWG gets a more serious bead on SDP. We, of course, feel we=
have
> run
> the gamut and are wanting to close down and call the FIN MIB complete=