Should we take this spec out of the context of the
IPP WG entirely and work it as a separate (related)
issue in JMP?
I agree with you about jmJobState and xxxProcessed.
Obviously, it's much more compact to sent the
values for jmGeneralJobSetIndex and jmJobIndex as
part of the instance qualifier of jmJobState -
I got carried away.
Also, as I mentioned to Dennis Carney in a recent
note on Tuesday (4 April), two other attributes in
the Job table (xxxPerCopyRequested) should also be
directly referenced (not recreated in Event Bindings
And by including all of the bindings from the
IPP Notifications spec for each of the four different
varieties of traps (device, job-state, job-completed,
and job-progress) we get (to my mind) traps which
are OBVIOUSLY not consistent with the SNMP philosophy
of lightweight trap bindings.
In particular, I'm thinking that we should remove from
the mandatory bindings all the 'jmEventSubscriber...'
objects - they're too IPP specific and useless in other
contexts (every other job submission protocol in
- Ira McDonald, consulting architect at Xerox and Sharp
High North Inc
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 : Wed Apr 12 2000 - 13:12:25 EDT