PMP Mail Archive: Re: PMP> Traps - new info

PMP Mail Archive: Re: PMP> Traps - new info

Re: PMP> Traps - new info

Chris Wellens (
Fri, 18 Apr 1997 18:52:02 -0700 (PDT)

On Fri, 18 Apr 1997, Harry Lewis wrote:

> Classification:
> Prologue:
> Epilogue: Harry Lewis - IBM Printing Systems
> First, I'm not sure who sent the attached note, there is no name attached.

The mail came from me, The reason you could not
tell is because you and I have discovered an interoperability problem
between Microsoft Internet Mail reader version 4.70.1155 and whatever
version of Lotus Notes you are using. If you report it as a bug
to the Lotus Notes team, I will report it to Microsoft.

> Exactly when did we
> test traps at the Interoperability test?

The series of tests for traps is the 5.10.x group. If you look
at the report that summarizes the IWL tests results from our
February interoperability testing, you will find the last four
items as the trap test. The report is on the site.

We did not set up conference calls on the results of the IWL
tests, because the majority of failures were either implementation
bugs, or things that we had already decided to change (like Max
access). That's probably why you don't remember this.

> every vendor must have a proprietary means of trap host registration (RIGHT?)
> any such test would have been preceded by questions and answers regarding how
> to accomplish this with each vendor and then some telnet process probably would
> have been engaged etc.

Actually, the Test Suite acts like it is the manager station, so
the idea is that when a trap is manually generated on the agent,
the Test Suite intercepts it. However, many of the participants
had set up other managers on their laptops. So, *if* they had
configured these other managers to be the trap receiver, then
that might explain the 100% failure.

> This was not the case for us. I also don't recall setting up for *any*
> application to receive traps. Does anyone recall this?

If you did not explicity do anything, then removing the paper
tray would send a trap that the Test Suite would automatically

> I don't think traps are too hard for the agent. Traps are hard for the
> manager, IMHO, in that registration is not standardized and only one application
> can listen on standard port 162 at a time.

Right. That's why I included the information from the SNMPv3
Working Group meeting. Lack of trap standardization has been
an outstanding problem, and now there seems to be consensus
on resolving it.

> >Based on all the facts right now, I would have to recommend that all the
> >references
> >about traps be removed from the RFC, and that the Printer MIB WG decides to
> >defer
> >specifying traps for printers until a standardized mechanism for traps is
> >defined.
> I strongly disagree! It's good that v3 is addressing issues with traps and we
> can
> expect improvements. I don't think this is any reason to remove traps from
> RFC1759!

If you re-read RFC2026, you will see that agreeing or disagreeing is
not really an option. Remember that we have to have at least two
interoperable implementations for every object, mandatory or optional.
So, we have to find two printers that have implemented traps, and
demonstrate that this works. If we cannot do that, then we have to
remove it from RFC 1759. We could probably take the position that
since there is not a standardized mechanism for trap registration and
receipt, that the manner in which the vendors have done it varies.

> Rather, we are taking the approach that interoperability testing
> has revealed differences among vendors and we have made some clarifications,
> but little change, and implementations are expected to adjust in time - thus
> achieving convergence (does anyone argue that this is not the approach we are
> taking?).

That is a good summary statement of where we are going. In all
the areas that we've been discussing, we've had some similarity
of results among the implementations. We were able to reach
agreement, or at least compromise, on how things should be, and
write that down. With traps, we are nowhere.

So, why don't you lead the charge here? Give this email to the
guys in the lab and ask them to re-run the 5.10.x series tests,
put a sniffer or whatever on wire, and find out what is going on.

P.S. Don't forget to report the bug to the Lotus Notes guys.

This email coming from pine:-)
--==--==--==- Chris Wellens
==--==--==--= Email: Web:
--==--==--==- InterWorking Labs, Inc. 244 Santa Cruz Ave, Aptos, CA 95003
==--==--==--= Tel: +1 408 685 3190 Fax: +1 408 662 9065