IPP Mail Archive: RE: IPP> FW: Slides for Job Mon MIB trap e

IPP Mail Archive: RE: IPP> FW: Slides for Job Mon MIB trap e

RE: IPP> FW: Slides for Job Mon MIB trap extensions for PWG-C

From: McDonald, Ira (imcdonald@sharplabs.com)
Date: Wed Apr 26 2000 - 16:14:35 EDT

  • Next message: harryl@us.ibm.com: "IPP> LDAP comment"

    Hi Dennis,

    Please see my much more recent proposal to the IPP list to skinny
    down all four of the SNMP traps (sent on Tuesday, 18 April).

    At today's IETF IPP WG Telecon, we agreed to ALSO skinny down the
    required bindings for machine-readable (application/ipp, snmp, etc.)
    forms of all four IPP events - see Bob Herriot's posted update to
    the IPP Notifications spec.

    Instead, IPP Subscription objects will support a new OPTIONAL
    attribute called 'notify-attributes' and there will be a new
    OPTIONAL IPP Printer attribute called 'notify-attributes-supported'.

    The majority of the job-progress and job-completed bindings will
    become optional in all implementations (by bilateral agreement
    with the client system via 'notify-attributes' or some other
    mechanism).

    An IBM-built implementation is free to send a large number of
    interesting attributes in any event, as has always been true in
    the IPP Notifications spec - but we're scaling back the REQUIRED
    content to encourage more widespread and rapid implementation of
    IPP Notifications.

    Comments?

    Cheers,
    - Ira McDonald, consulting architect at Xerox and Sharp
      High North Inc

    PS - This is my last day onsite at Sharp in Camas, WA. Nancy
    and I will be on the road for the next two weeks, arriving home
    in northern Michigan (about) Wednesday (10 May). After this
    Friday (28 April) I will not see email or voice mail at all
    until we get home to Michigan.

    -----Original Message-----
    From: dcarney@us.ibm.com [mailto:dcarney@us.ibm.com]
    Sent: Wednesday, April 26, 2000 10:18 AM
    To: McDonald, Ira; ipp@pwg.org
    Subject: RE: IPP> FW: Slides for Job Mon MIB trap extensions for PWG-C

    (I'm sorry for the long delay between Ira's message and my response--my
    wife went into labor about two hours after Ira's message, and then I was on
    leave for a while.)

    Thanks for the reply, Ira. My responses are below prefaced by DC>.

    Dennis

    "McDonald, Ira" <imcdonald@sharplabs.com> on 04/03/2000 10:40:59 AM

    To: Dennis Carney/Boulder/IBM@IBMUS, "McDonald, Ira"
          <imcdonald@sharplabs.com>, "'ipp@pwg.org'" <ipp@pwg.org>
    cc: Harry Lewis/Boulder/IBM@IBMUS
    Subject: RE: IPP> FW: Slides for Job Mon MIB trap extensions for PWG-C

    Hi Dennis, Monday (3 April 2000)

    (I've copied the IPP list on this reply, because the thread is
    probably of general interest)

    Actually these three attributes in are RECOMMENDED (SHOULD) in
    the SNMP trap bindings and not merely OPTIONAL (MAY).
    DC> Good! I missed that.

    They are only OPTIONAL (MAY) in the IPP Event Notification spec
    (8 March 2000) in the table on page 42.

    For the SNMP trap bindings, I couldn't reasonably make these
    attributes MANDATORY (explicit in the OBJECTS clause) because
    there are NO underlying attributes currently defined in the PWG
    Job Monitoring MIB v1.0 ('xxx-completed' attributes are defined,
    but the 'xxx-requested' ones are not, except for the one
    'jobKOctetsTransferred' which should have the same value as
    IPP's 'job-k-octets').
    DC> What about
    DC> jmJobKOctetsPerCopyRequested,
    DC> jmJobImpressionsPerCopyRequested, and the
    DC> sheetsRequested attribute?
    DC> Aren't these the "underlying attributes" you're looking for?
    DC> I think the first of these two are even MANDATORY.

    I'm trying to propose new notification groups and object groups
    for addition to the PWG Job Mon MIB.

    Are you suggesting that these missing job attributes be defined
    in a revised PWG Job Mon MIB?
    DC> I think they're already there.

    The real problem with gas gauges is that while job size in
    k-octets of raw PDL may be known, job size in impressions
    is almost never known before rendering. Further most PDL
    interpreters I've seen don't even have hooks for reporting
    progress out to the job scheduler/SNMP agent interface. You
    can't instrument what doesn't exist. Maybe IBM writes their
    own PDL interpreters? Most printer vendors buy them from
    third-parties.
    DC> I would think that most printers, whether they have hooks
    DC> into the PDL or not, would have the ability, at least if they
    DC> wanted to, to keep track of how many impressions the PDL
    DC> is spitting out. That is, the printer has to print the
    DC> impressions, so it is not unreasonable to imagine that it
    DC> could count them as well.
    DC>
    DC> As far as the not "known before rendering" issue, we've
    DC> discussed this before, and my contention is that knowing it
    DC> at some point is better then never knowing it. If you, Ira,
    DC> look at a queue and see that John Doe is printing a job whose
    DC> status is "Page 12 of 27", that gives you a much better idea
    DC> of whether you want to print to that printer than if the
    DC> status was "Page 12", even if only a few moments before, the
    DC> status was simply "Page 10" due to the total impression
    DC> count 27 not being known yet.

    Cheers,
    - Ira McDonald, consulting architect at Sharp and Xerox
      High North Inc

    -----Original Message-----
    From: dcarney@us.ibm.com [mailto:dcarney@us.ibm.com]
    Sent: Friday, March 31, 2000 4:05 PM
    To: McDonald, Ira
    Cc: harryl@us.ibm.com
    Subject: Re: IPP> FW: Slides for Job Mon MIB trap extensions for PWG-C

    Ira,

    I'm sorry to be coming in late in the game here, but I have looked at your
    proposal at a high-level and I'm wondering if the "gas gauge" idea has been
    forgotten.

    Specifically, in
      ftp://ftp.pwg.org/pub/pwg/ipp/new_NOT/draft-ietf-ipp-not-spec-02.txt
    page 42, attributes 'job-k-octets', 'job-impressions', and
    'job-media-sheets' are optional on 'job-progress' as well as
    'job-completed' notifications. I remember we (you and I on the mailing
    list) had a spirited discussion about this, but in the end, the attributes
    got added to the notifications.

    However, in
      ftp://ftp.pwg.org/pub/pwg/ipp/new_NOT/draft-ietf-ipp-not-over-snmp-02.pdf
    page 14, those same "attributes" are missing from the jmJobProgressV2Event.

    Is there something I'm missing (it wouldn't be surprising since I have been
    absent from all the discussions of this!)?

    In any case, I would think that if the PWG IPP group decided to put these
    attributes in IPP notifications, they would also decide to put the same
    attributes in SNMP traps meant to convey IPP notifications. No?

    Dennis



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Apr 26 2000 - 16:21:48 EDT