PMP Mail Archive: Re[2]: PMP> Questions on RFC1759

PMP Mail Archive: Re[2]: PMP> Questions on RFC1759

Re[2]: PMP> Questions on RFC1759

Bill Wagner (
Mon, 17 Mar 1997 21:02:09 -0500

Perhaps some SNMP guru will correct me, but my understanding is that
RFC1759 presented a MIB in compliance with SMI v2 not SNMPv2. I
believe that a VI agent does just fine with the MIB. Indeed the trap
is defined in both SNMPv1 and v2 form. A management application
unfamiliar with SMI V2 does have problems compiling the MIB. The
Printer Working Group did disseminate an unguaranteed VI version of
the MIB about 1-1/2 years ago and this should be in the PWG archives.

Bill Wagner

______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________
Subject: Re: PMP> Questions on RFC1759
Author: at Internet
Date: 3/17/97 8:44 AM

Harish nachnani wrote:
> 1. RFC1759 follows snmpv2 format conventions. What if the
> agent only supported snmpv1. Is there a v1 version of 1759.mib ?

I don't think there has been one published, however, I believe that
there are a few tools out there that will convert MIBs to v1 format.
The Pro version of SMICng is supposed to ( and I
believe that there used to be some agents on the internet to which you
could send a MIB to have it converted. Also, a few well written emacs
macros will do the trick (that is how I converted the MIB to v1 format
some time back).

Can anyone else help on this?

> 2. If a printer does not support console buffer or marker or
> colorant etc, what should be the query response from the agents
> for these objects ?

Pretty much what you would expect, an attempt to GET an instance of an
object that does not exist should return noSuchName. An attempt to
GETNEXT an object that has no instances (an empty table) should return
the first instance of the next object in the device's MIB tree.

Example: GETNEXT prtConsoleDisplayBufferText
GETRESPONSE prtConsoleOnTime.1.1 = 0

> 3. In mib walk interop test results what does NV stand for ?

That particular agent had no value for that instance of the object in

> Thanks
> Harish.


Matt King                                     Opinions are my own and 
Staff Engineer                                    are not necessarily 
Lexmark International, Inc.                          those of Lexmark