PMP Mail Archive: Re: PMP> Subagent Problem

PMP Mail Archive: Re: PMP> Subagent Problem

Re: PMP> Subagent Problem

Harry Lewis (
Fri, 14 Mar 1997 15:32:16 -0500

Epilogue: Harry Lewis - IBM Printing Systems

Chris, I don't think we're drifting off into topics that other areas (AgentX)
are handling. Rather, we ran smack into the pier 2 years ago and (apparently)
have had a damaged bow ever since!

I think RFC1573 does a fine job handling multiple interfaces... and it *still*
has ifNumber... the number of
interfaces on the *system*! Perhaps we could make use of ifStackTable and/or
Virtual Circuits as alternatives to our Channel group (I'm not recommending
this), and I believe we've already helped ourselves to the extended list of
ifTypes... but I see little in RFC1573 that supports the notion of each printer
interface treating itself as if it were the only one there.

I guess the "problem" I'm having is, we're either going to play this game the
IETF way or we're going to play it the PWG way. I have no problem with the PWG
reaching consensus that, in a network printing environment, no one really
cares, when they've discovered a printer via one interface, that there's
another interface through which they could "talk". And no one really cares to
distinguish a printer vs. an interface when it comes to counting packets. If
we're going to play by IETF rules, however, I'd like someone to explain how a
printer should treat multiple interfaces with respect to RFC1213, 1573 and
their successors... once and for all!
---------------------- Forwarded by Harry Lewis/Boulder/IBM on 03/14/97 12:49 PM

03/13/97 07:41 PM
Please respond to IINUS1.RSCS6039 @ VM

To: Harry Lewis/Boulder/IBM@IBMUS
Subject: Re: PMP> Subagent Problem

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.