PMP Mail Archive: PMP> RE: Print MIB 09

PMP Mail Archive: PMP> RE: Print MIB 09

PMP> RE: Print MIB 09

From: McDonald, Ira (
Date: Wed Nov 14 2001 - 22:30:32 EST

  • Next message: McDonald, Ira: "PMP> RE: Print MIB 09"

    Hi Bert,

    But there's a new compliance group in the Printer MIB v2 for the other
    two new objects added to the General table that are part of the extended
    Alert group. It's perfectly straightforward to add 'prtAlertIndex'
    to the 'prtAlertTableV2Group' which is OPTIONAL in the
    'prtMIBCompliance' macro. Why isn't that acceptable?

    - Ira McDonald

    -----Original Message-----
    From: Wijnen, Bert (Bert) []
    Sent: Wednesday, November 14, 2001 11:53 AM
    To: McDonald, Ira; 'Juergen Schoenwaelder';
    Cc:;;;; Casterline, Ray;;;
    Subject: RE: Print MIB 09

    If you make it read-only, then you still get compiler warning/errors
    that the prtAlertIndex is not contained in any group.
    If you were to add it to a group, then that is an incompatible change.

    Now... from earlier email from Ron, my understanding was that the
    vendors/people would only "fix" the mib file in order for compilers
    to work. (by the way, SMICng has a #addOpt 'N' flag that suppresses
    the warning/error... Juergen, SMIlint probably has such a thing too?)

    It was not clear to me that people had implemented the object read-only.
    Are you telling me that you can do a GET prtAlertIndex.1 and that
    it will return the value 1??


    > -----Original Message-----
    > From: McDonald, Ira []
    > Sent: Wednesday, November 14, 2001 5:44 PM
    > To: 'Juergen Schoenwaelder';
    > Cc:;;
    >; Casterline, Ray;;;
    >; McDonald, Ira
    > Subject: RE: Print MIB 09
    > Hi Juergen,
    > This is a tough question. For six years now every Xerox product has
    > shipped with 'prtAlertIndex' at 'read-only' to preserve the content
    > of the notification. I have seen this done at several other printer
    > vendors. To date, there is no identified shipping implementation
    > that leaves 'prtAlertIndex' at 'not-accessible' (that was only one
    > of several compile errors in the RFC 1759 text - I've never seen a
    > compiler that would accept RFC 1759 unmodified, but I suppose it's
    > possible).
    > Our WG concensus to change the published version to 'read-only' is
    > in order to align with all known shipping implementations (who all
    > did it by hand-edit themselves).
    > Cheers,
    > - Ira McDonald, consulting architect at Xerox
    > High North
    > -----Original Message-----
    > From: Juergen Schoenwaelder []
    > Sent: Wednesday, November 14, 2001 2:23 AM
    > To:
    > Cc:;;
    > Subject: Re: Print MIB 09
    > >>>>> Bergman, Ron writes:
    > Ron> The WG has already discussed the addition of text to explain why
    > Ron> prtAlertIndex is broken. In fact is is presently being drafted.
    > Ron> We are still not sure if this object must be "not-accessible" or
    > Ron> can we change to "read-only". Since with many compilers the MIB
    > Ron> must be modified to "read-only", the WG prefers to change the
    > Ron> MAX-ACCESS clause. The addition of a new group and conformance
    > Ron> statements, in this case, is agreed.
    > There are existing fielded implementations that implement
    > prtAlertIndex not-accessible. So what is the point in making it
    > read-only just to kind of fix the notification? If it is true that
    > people had problems to implement the notification because
    > prtAlertIndex is not-accessible, then this would be a data point to
    > actually fix the notification by providing a new one that does it
    > right.
    > Changing prtAlertIndex from not-accessible to read-only to fix the
    > notification kind is IMHO heading in the wrong direction.
    > /js
    > --
    > Juergen Schoenwaelder Technical University Braunschweig
    > <> Dept. Operating Systems & Computer Networks
    > Phone: +49 531 391 3289 Muehlenpfordtstr. 23, 38106
    > Braunschweig, Germany
    > Fax: +49 531 391 5936 <>

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Nov 14 2001 - 22:31:18 EST