IPP Mail Archive: Re: IPP> Review of the SNMP Notifications

Re: IPP> Review of the SNMP Notifications Method

From: Ron Bergman (rbergma@hitachi-hkis.com)
Date: Mon Feb 28 2000 - 19:35:31 EST

  • Next message: McDonald, Ira: "RE: IPP> Review of the SNMP Notifications Method"


    I agree with trying to do more via email. Right now the
    IPP telecons are eating into too much of my time, so
    I would prefer to try email. Maybe telecons after the
    Toyko meeting, in place of some of the normal IPP

    I really don't see any point in trying to get a new draft
    to the IETF. If you can, fine, but I would not recommend
    this be our "primary goal".

    I should have my promised comments before the end
    of the week and these may have more impact on the
    draft and generate more discussion.


    "McDonald, Ira" wrote:

    > Hi Ron,
    > 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
    > other topics.
    > Cheers,
    > - Ira McDonald (consulting architect at Sharp Labs America)
    > High North Inc
    > -----Original Message-----
    > From: Ron Bergman [mailto:rbergma@hitachi-hkis.com]
    > Sent: Monday, February 28, 2000 1:59 PM
    > To: McDonald, Ira
    > Subject: Re: IPP> Review of the SNMP Notifications Method
    > Ira,
    > 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.
    > Ron
    > "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).
    > >
    > > Cheers,
    > > - Ira McDonald
    > >
    > > -----Original Message-----
    > > From: Ron Bergman [mailto:rbergma@hitachi-hkis.com]
    > > Sent: Wednesday, February 23, 2000 6:28 PM
    > > To: Ira McDonald
    > > Cc: Carl-Uno Manros
    > > Subject: IPP> Review of the SNMP Notifications Method
    > >
    > > Ira,
    > >
    > > 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 - 19:32:58 EST