PMP Mail Archive: Re: Re[2]: PMP> Subagent Problem

PMP Mail Archive: Re: Re[2]: PMP> Subagent Problem

Re: Re[2]: PMP> Subagent Problem

JK Martin (
Fri, 14 Mar 1997 09:57:19 -0500 (EST)

I agree with Bill 100%. If we are indeed forced to reference the
new SNMPV2-based MIBs, then we should remove references to those
MIBs entirely (for the reasons Bill recently proposed).


----- Begin Included Message -----

Mime-Version: 1.0
Date: Thu, 13 Mar 1997 23:34:06 -0500
From: (Bill Wagner)
Subject: Re[2]: PMP> Subagent Problem
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit


Harry says over a year because the PWG had the idea that we would do
our homework and get all the ducks lined up for the next phase of the
printer MIB before requesting official work-group sanction. This
effort started in October of 1995. We are now on the n'th interation
of going over some things, while others remain unaddressed.

We had gone over the need to reference RFC 1907 and RFC 1573 many
times, and were assure by those whom we beleived to be conniscent that
we were 'grandfathered' into not needing them. The change renders many
of the existing implementations obsolete, and I have some doubt that
there is any functional justification for the expense and
cumbersomeness of going to SNMPV2.

I would also say that, if reference to the RFC1213 now must be
replaced with RFC 1907 and RFC 1573, I believe even more strongly that
these references are unnecessary and inappropriate. The only reference
to RFC 1213 in the printer MIB is in relation to the channel index in
the description of prtChannelIfIndex. Having the set of MIB's called
for in RFC 1573 to correlate a channel to an interface makes no sense.

The contention, previously expressed by others, that SNMP is
cumbersome and inappropriate for printer management would get
substantial support if this is the way it goes. Indeed, maybe the best
thing would be to leave the MIB at rfc1759.

______________________________ Reply Separator
Subject: Re: PMP> Subagent Problem
Author: Chris Wellens <> at Internet
Date: 3/13/97 6:38 PM

On Mon, 10 Mar 1997, Harry Lewis <harryl@VNET.IBM.COM> wrote:

[stuff deleted]

> I appreciate the pointer to the SubAgent group, however, I'm not
> sure multiple agents per device is as prevalent a problem with
> printers as is the device with multiple interfaces.

On the subject of multiple interfaces, we should probably make
sure everyone is reading the same RFCs. As you know Lloyd and I
are working on compiling the list of all the required changes to
RFC 1759 along with the justification.

A big change is that all SNMP RFCs are required to support
SNMPv2. This means that our references to MIB II, RFC 1213, now
have to be updated to the two documents that replace it. These

RFC 1907 "MIB for Version2 of SNMPv2"
RFC 1573 "Evolution of the Interfaces Group of MIB-II"

I thought RFC 1573 did a pretty comprehensive job of addressing
multiple interfaces. What do you think is missing?

[stuff deleted]

> When we try to get too granular with this scheme, then we run into
> problems. Gail has demonstrated this lately with each device (printer)
> sharing some other device (storage) in the hrMIB. But, I don't think
> this is the "multiple agent problem" (is it?). This is lack of
> demarcation of shared resources (and I haven't quite decided how to
> respond to Gail's dilemma).

I will have to reread Gail's email.

> I don't know what prompted your note on AgentX.

I am attempting to keep us focused on getting to DRAFT
Standard. We cannot afford to drift off into other areas that
other groups are handling. That's all.

----- End Included Message -----