PMP Mail Archive: PMP> Why were MIN-ACCESS clauses added to

PMP Mail Archive: PMP> Why were MIN-ACCESS clauses added to

PMP> Why were MIN-ACCESS clauses added to Printer MIB v2?

From: Gocek, Gary (GGocek@crt.xerox.com)
Date: Thu Sep 28 2000 - 16:35:14 EDT

  • Next message: Gocek, Gary: "RE: PMP> Why were MIN-ACCESS clauses added to Printer MIB v2?"

    Way back in the first draft (1997) of the new Printer MIB following RFC
    1759, all objects with a MAX-ACCESS of read-write were given a MIN-ACCESS of
    read-only. Previously, only two objects had a MIN-ACCESS clause, but in the
    latest draft of Printer MIB v2 there are 51 such objects. There is a short
    note about this change in the document "changes_to_rfc_1759.pdf".

    In a recent discussion with my colleagues, we wondered why these MIN-ACCESS
    clauses were added. Of course, we can implement read-write objects if we
    want to, because that's what the MAX-ACCESS clauses state. But we don't
    understand why the MIN-ACCESS clauses were added. We see cases where
    read-write access is helpful, such as during a remote printer installation.

    Agent implementations that are compliant with RFC 1759 have the objects
    implemented as read-write, since there are no MIN-ACCESS clauses in 1759
    that allow read-only. New agent implementations of the v2 MIB would be
    compliant with read-only access, but might break old management or other
    apps that expect to be able to set all those values.

    Can anyone think of a good defense for the new MIN-ACCESS clauses?

    Thanks,
    Gary Gocek, Xerox Corp.



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Sep 28 2000 - 16:44:03 EDT