Could you please explain why you feel "the new MIN-ACCESS clauses
fundamentally change the printer MIB"?
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,
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Gocek, Gary [mailto:GGocek@crt.xerox.com]
> > Sent: Thursday, September 28, 2000 4:35 PM
> > To: 'firstname.lastname@example.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