I am forwarding this since it didn't seem to be accepted when I sent it early from my office.
attached mail follows:
The WG appreciates your review of the latest Printer MIB draft and has
modified the document for all except #2 and #6. In both cases, it was
agreed that your comment is valid, but due to compiler bugs (#2) or
implementation errors in RFC1759 (#6) we believe that we are forced
to maintain the text as in the last draft. We were especially happy
that you caught several typos missed by the reviewers in the WG.
A summary of the WG responses and document changes follows. The
updated MIB can be found at:
for the PrintMIB Working Group
> Below are comments on the MIB in <draft-ietf-printmib-mib-info-07.txt>.
> It would be nice if you can address them.
> 1. Please import mib-2 from SNMPv2-SMI instead of RFC1213-MIB. This
> avoids the dependency from SMIv1 MIB modules.
The import for mib-2 has been changed as recommended.
> 2. Our smilint suggests to use Integer32 (0..126) instead of INTEGER
> (0..126) in the definition of PrtSubUnitStatusTC. Sure, this change
> is cosmetic so I am not religious about it.
Experience by some vendors has shown problems with NMS compilers when
'Integer32' is used in textual conventions. We would prefer to not
change this syntax.
> 3. There are multiple refinements for prtAuxiliarySheetStartupPage,
> prtAuxiliarySheetBannerPage, prtInputMediaLoadTimeout, and
> prtInputNextIndex in the prtMIBCompliance compliance statement.
> This does not make sense to me.
This looks like an editing error and the duplicates have been removed.
> 4. The definition of prtChannelIndex requires a range restriction
> such as (1..2147483647) since negative values are not possible.
> (I suggest to not include 0 unless existing implementations
> already use the value 0.)
prtChannelIndex has been changed as suggested.
> 5. Similarily, prtAlertIndex should have a suitable range restriction
> such as (1..2147483647).
prtAlertIndex has been changed as suggested.
> 6. prtAlertIndex can not be used in the OBJECTS clause of the
> printerV2Alert notification since it is not-accessible. Note that
> the index is not needed in the notification since it can be
> obtained from the other objects present in the OBJECT clause.
This problem exists in RFC 1759 as well, and because of the need for
backward compatibility, the WG cannot accept this change. The original
error in RFC 1759 is unfortunate, but it is shipping in almost every
printer in the industry.
> 7. prtAlertIndex can not be a member of the prtAlertTableGroup as it
> is not-accessible. (OK, it looks like this definition has already
> been in RFC 1759 so it might be too late to fix it.)
The WG has agreed to remove prtAlertIndex from the prtAlertTableGroup.
> 8. I suggest to add clauses to the compliance statement that say that
> the prtAlertTimeGroup is unconditionally optional (similar to the
> clauses for the prtMarkerColorantGroup).
Yes, this will be corrected.
> Juergen Schoenwaelder Technical University Braunschweig
> <email@example.com> Dept. Operating Systems & Computer Networks
> Phone: +49 531 391 3289 Bueltenweg 74/75, 38106 Braunschweig, Germany
> Fax: +49 531 391 5936 <URL:http://www.ibr.cs.tu-bs.de/~schoenw/>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Jul 09 2001 - 13:59:17 EDT