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

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

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

From: Ron Bergman (rbergma@hitachi-hkis.com)
Date: Fri Sep 29 2000 - 12:05:16 EDT

  • Next message: Harry Lewis/Boulder/IBM: "RE: PMP> Why were MIN-ACCESS clauses added to Printer MIB v2?"

    Gary,

    Could you please explain why you feel "the new MIN-ACCESS clauses
    fundamentally change the printer MIB"?

        Ron Bergman
        Hitachi Koki Imaging Solutions

    "Gocek, Gary" wrote:

    > I made my point a little too broadly. We can see how MIN-ACCESS clauses
    > ease the implementation burden. However, we noticed a couple of cases
    > (prtGeneralCurrentLocalization and prtConsoleLocalization in particular)
    > where we feel that the new MIN-ACCESS clauses fundamentally change the
    > printer MIB, and we wonder if there is a justification for adding those
    > particular MIN-ACCESS clauses. There might be a few more instances, but not
    > all 51.
    >
    > Thanks again,
    > Gary
    >
    > > -----Original Message-----
    > > From: Gocek, Gary [mailto:GGocek@crt.xerox.com]
    > > Sent: Thursday, September 28, 2000 4:35 PM
    > > To: 'pmp@pwg.org'
    > > Subject: 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 : Fri Sep 29 2000 - 12:02:12 EDT