I tend to agree with Paul. I have similar concerns
regarding the PWG's attempt to define standard ways
of subscribing to Traps--this is a truly generic
requirement for a very, very large audience, and not
just the PWG's. If the PWG wants a "standard" mechanism
that is genuinely usable by a large audience, then we
should play the IETF game and get a new WG formed that
draws from that audience.
...jay
----------------------------------------------------------------------
-- JK Martin | Email: jkm@underscore.com --
-- Underscore, Inc. | Voice: (603) 889-7000 --
-- 41C Sagamore Park Road | Fax: (603) 889-2699 --
-- Hudson, NH 03051-4915 | Web: http://www.underscore.com --
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Harry Lewis wrote:
>
> Paul, don't forget that the IETF showed no interest in the Job MIB, this
> allowed us to develop technology more well suited to our industry. We took
> advantage of this position, but maintained close contact and review with SNMP
> standards experts. The FIN MIB continues this approach even though it actually
> augments RFC1759.
>
> 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 object
> 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 yet'.
> You have defined a generic extensibiity mechanism - this is more properly
> 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 1759.
>
> > -----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 taken
> > time
> > to review our work.
> >
> > Paul has been a big advocate of SDP so he may be wishing we could hold 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