PMP Mail Archive: Re[2]: PMP> Traps - new info

PMP Mail Archive: Re[2]: PMP> Traps - new info

Re[2]: PMP> Traps - new info

Bill Wagner (
Tue, 22 Apr 1997 19:16:14 -0400

Since I have seen no message on this subject from the manufacturer of
the printer which I participated in testing, let me indicate that that
printer does support the RFC 1759 traps. However, the trap
destinations must be entered in the NIC NV RAM (via a private
enterprise MIB) before trap activity can be seen on the net.

The PWG avoided attempting to address general questions on trap setup
and use since this appeared to be beyond the scope of the charter. The
IETF must address this, hopefully in a way applicable to the various
applications. As Lloyd indicates, there may also be questions of
consistency of implementation that need to be worked out. But I agree
that traps are potentially very useful capabilities that should not be
elimiated fro the Printer MIB.

Bill Wagner, Osicom/DPI

______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________
Subject: Re: PMP> Traps - new info
Author: Lloyd Young <> at Internet
Date: 4/21/97 4:54 PM

I'm answering this as the Lexmark representative not as the co-chair.
My opinion on why the IWL trap tests failed is actually because of
several reasons:
1. Some vendors did not implement traps
2. The IWL test for traps require that the printer under test be
configured to send traps to the workstation running the tests.
I know that I did not make this clear to the partipicants at the
interop testing. Therefore of the few printers that implement
traps, they were probably not set up to send traps to the
workstation running the IWL suite.
3. Matt actually configured our printer to send traps to the IWL
test suite and it crashed. We send an enterprise trap before
sending the Printer MIB trap and we surmise think the IWL trap
test does not handle this.

I do not think we should remove traps from the Printer MIB.
I think there is work that has already been done that proves
trap interoperability but it is still be checked.
Lloyd Young
To: @ @ SMTP
cc: @ @ SMTP (bcc: Lloyd Young)
From: @ (JK Martin) @ SMTP
Date: 04/19/97 03:20:30 PM
Subject: Re: PMP> Traps - new info

* Other text deleted

I wonder if the relative silence from the other interop participants
indicates agreement to your position (ie, take Traps out of the spec
entirely), or could it be that none of the participants believes we
really have a problem.

It would be nice to hear from more of the other participants! Considering
the gravity of this issue, the PWG (and the IETF) should hear from more
folks than just Chris, Harry and myself.