Right - cart before the horse - I'll look forward
to your comments and will *not* try to turn a new
draft in the few remaining days before the I-D
From: Ron Bergman [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org]
Sent: Monday, February 28, 2000 4:36 PM
To: McDonald, Ira
Cc: 'email@example.com'; 'firstname.lastname@example.org'
Subject: 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.
> - Ira McDonald (consulting architect at Sharp Labs America)
> High North Inc
> -----Original Message-----
> 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).
> > Cheers,
> > - 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
> > 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 - 19:42:34 EST