JMP Mail Archive: Re[2]: JMP> Re: jmJobState [which mandatory job states?]

Re[2]: JMP> Re: jmJobState [which mandatory job states?]

Bill Wagner (bwagner@digprod.com)
Thu, 5 Jun 1997 13:30:08 -0400

Tom,

Many thanks for the response. I think the point is moot now, but I
guess I would argue that:
1. since the MIB is dealing with states of a short-lived entity,the
states are all transitory. The management applications have no
guarantee that they will see each state that the job goes
through,whether that state is mandatory or not.
2. the MIB documents the desired implementation; the market
pressures and desire to add value to the product will ultimately be
the major driving force to follow this implementation as closely as
feasible. Getting into squabbles about what is compliant or not, when
it does not significantly aid utilization, is fruitless.

Bill Wagner, Osicom/DPI

______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________
Subject: Re: JMP> Re: jmJobState [which mandatory job states?]
Author: Tom Hastings <hastings@cp10.es.xerox.com> at Internet
Date: 6/5/97 8:38 AM

Bill,

Here goes some thoughts on why having MANDATORY enums be specified
for mandatory objects, so that all conforming agents shall implement
them.

[However, on the telecon yesterday, I was the only person advocating
conformance on the enum values. So I won't keep bringing up this
subject anymore. The e-mail discussion this past week has prevented me
from getting the MIB I need to consult with some SNMP experts in this,
because my understanding of SNMP conformance (see the back of the
Printer MIB, is that conformance of enum values is an important
part of SNMP to help interworking between implementations from
different vendors).] ...