I just asked Harry Lewis this same question earlier
this afternoon and he agreed. So did Tom Hastings
a few minutes ago.
So, unless someone strongly objects, in my spare time
(hah!) I'll rework the IPP Notifications over SNMP
proposal to generalize the 'jmPrinterEvent' trap to
be 'jmDeviceEvent' (usable from Scanner MIB, MFP MIB,
Fax MIB, or whatever). I'll *try* to get the new
draft posted before the I-D cutoff on 10 March.
Ron, what do you think about working this update to
the Job Mon MIB via email and one or a few dedicated
telecons? I can't travel to the PWG meetings. And
in any case, they seem to be pretty full already with
- Ira McDonald (consulting architect at Sharp Labs America)
High North Inc
From: Ron Bergman [mailto:email@example.com]
Sent: Monday, February 28, 2000 1:59 PM
To: McDonald, Ira
Subject: Re: IPP> Review of the SNMP Notifications Method
A change to jmDeviceEvent is a very good idea! The
MFPA is presently trying to incorporate as much of the
PWG work as possible into the Multifunction standards
and this will certainly help with notifications.
I don't believe that Sharp is an MFPA member, but
you can still participate in the standards development.
You can even attend the meetings. I expect to see
more PWG participation in MFPA activities this year,
now the the MFPA is doing some "real" work.
"McDonald, Ira" wrote:
> Hi Ron,
> I've been contemplating, in support of the Scanner MIB
> work and any possible future Fax MIB, abstracting the
> current IPP Notifications over SNMP a little bit and
> changing the 'jmPrinterEvent' to be 'jmDeviceEvent'
> (which could then serve for Scanner MIB and private
> MIB events). The PWG Job Monitoring MIB already
> has 'JmJobServiceTypes' to express print, scan, fax-in,
> fax-out, etc. in jobs and is therefore already abstracted
> away from strictly print jobs.
> I had hoped to issue the new I-D before the 10 March
> deadline (Carl-Uno isn't that when I-Ds are cutoff'
> before IETF Adelaide, Australia??), but I've got the
> flu and a ton of other work, so probably not.
> I copied the IPP WG on this note, so folks would know
> what's happening as early as possible (before this
> Wednesday's IPP WG Telecon).
> - Ira McDonald
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ron Bergman [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org]
> Sent: Wednesday, February 23, 2000 6:28 PM
> To: Ira McDonald
> Cc: Carl-Uno Manros
> Subject: IPP> Review of the SNMP Notifications Method
> So far there has not been any group review of your proposal
> for SNMP Notifications. The last two meetings had a very
> full schedule with the new Set Operations and the other
> notification methods.
> I have volunteered to lead the discussion on this document
> and hope to have a slot in the Tokyo meeting.
> In the mean time I hope to do an extensive review of your
> proposal. As I stated previously, it looks like an excellent
> base for SNMP notifications. I do have some suggested
> improvements which I believe can be made available by
> the end of next week. (I had hoped to complete this task
> prior to the LA meeting, but other task seem to get in the
> way.) If we could at least have some discussions prior to
> the Tokyo meeting, they could then be presented to the
> group for additional feedback.
> I do not feel that any changes need to be made to your
> document for the IETF meeting. From past experience,
> there is not much feedback from these meetings unless
> specific issues are contained in the presentation. Also,
> I have not seen any participation from SNMP experts in
> the IPP discussions.
> Ron Bergman
> Hitachi Koki Imaging Solutions
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Feb 28 2000 - 19:11:54 EST