We seem to have forgotten the other object in this new group that we agreed
to at the meeting, which is very useful to applications:
A BITS vector that indicates which attributes have been implemented. Then
an application can know whether to ever expect certain attributes to appear
or not.
I agree that we don't want to turn the JMP MIB into a research project.
On the other hand, our developers had previously suggested just such a BITS
vector, so I was very supportive of the proposal when it was brought up at
the Tucson meeting.
I'll make the proposal today.
Tom
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Ron Bergman [mailto:rbergma@dpc.com]
>Sent: Monday, November 23, 1998 08:08
>To: jmp@pwg.org
>Subject: JMP> Object to Indicate MIB Revision
>
>
>An additional object for the Job MIB, that would indicate the
>version of
>the MIB implemented, was discussed at the Tucson meeting. Now
>two weeks
>later there has not been a formal proposal submitted to the mail list.
>
>Upon further pondering of the proposal, I have concluded that this
>additional object would have marginal value. (No other MIB, that I am
>aware of, includes such an object.)
>
>I would like to get this project back on track and submit the updated
>document to the IESG as soon as possible. I do not want this effort to
>turn into a long term research project.
>
>I suggest that the document be frozen as presented in Tucson
>and the last
>call start immediately.
>
>Comments?
>
>
> Ron Bergman
> Dataproducts Corp.
>
>