I also have similar concerns regarding this subject. IMHO we need to
stop and state "what problem(s) are we trying to solve" and "what
alternatives are available".
Although I am still not up to speed on all the issues presented so far
(I have not read the proposal of the day), it does seem that the
current proposed changes do more than address what I understood to
be the stated problem.
Thanks for the excellent observation.
On Mon, 28 Jul 1997, Harry Lewis wrote:
> Tom wrote...
> >You are assuming that there is only ONE management application using
> >the Printer MIB! What if there are several, one writing values, and
> >the others reading values. (I don't want to even think about more than
> >one writing values). Wouldn't it help if the management app that is
> >writing values was doing so in the localization specified in the MIB?
> You can imagine someone running Win95 in French managing a printer in Tibet
> with strings set by a console in Germany but you don't want to think about
> more than one manager writing values? I sympathize, Tom, but I find this
> illustrative of the trouble I'm having relating to all the char set traffic
> which suggests the Printer MIB is broken. If I read French and not German...
> does it really help me to get the string back in the "correct" language?
> Yes - I'm making a simplifying assumption that localization is either
> (naturally) common across the management domain *OR* that wide area
> management policies ENFORCE a specific local. I am not necessarily
> assuming that there is only one management application.
> As you point out... we're all carrying additional, perhaps far more
> devastating, assumptions about who's setting what .
> Harry Lewis