Sorry for sending these comments so late, but I was unable
to read the document prior to the Tokyo meeting.
I believe that we have now gone to far in creating new
objects for use in the traps. Is there a reason why we
jmJobState instead of jmEventJobState
jmJobKOctetsProcessed instead of
jmJobImpressionsCompleted instead of
Use of these three existing objects also allows the
Job Index and Job Set Index to be derived from the OIDs
and they do not have to be separate varbind entries.
This provides some addition space for other entries.
You probably heard that there was an extreme lack of
support for this method in the Tokyo meeting. As I
look at the complexity of this approach vs the traps
that I have currently implemented, I am begining to
also wonder why all this is needed. In trying to do a
complete match to the IPP Notifications specification
we have created a very complex trap definition. Is
all this really needed or are we trying to include
everything just in case?
I am still willing to provide some support for this
method but I am not likely to implement this unless
there is wide support by management applications.
Hitachi Koki Imaging Solutions
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Apr 11 2000 - 21:44:33 EDT