thanks all for their answers, especially Bert for finding such an elegant
solution of our problem.
As proposed by Ron, we are now working out which mib parts of the printer
are needed for stand alone finishers. The result will go to PWG for review.
Von: Bergman, Ron [mailto:Ron.Bergman@rpsa.ricoh.com]
Gesendet: Freitag, 17. Juni 2005 23:19
An: Hirn, Andreas
Cc: firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; Harry Lewis; Wijnen, Bert (Bert);
Betreff: RE: FIN> finisher mib integration into up3i
Sorry for taking so long for an answer.
As you can see from the previous responses, there is no need to implement
the entire MIB. And there is also no need to wait for a new conformance
document from the PWG. When you decide what makes sense please send the
results to the PWG for review and we will then generate the appropriate
document. It may be that you will encounter several different necessary
configurations. We will accommodate whatever you define.
In the mean time we will no doubt ponder how this new conformance
will be documented.
We will also are willing to review any interium proposals as they are
Ricoh Printing Systems America
PWG SNMP MIBS Working Group Chairman
From: firstname.lastname@example.org [mailto:email@example.com]On Behalf Of McDonald,
Sent: Tuesday, June 07, 2005 7:57 PM
To: 'Wijnen, Bert (Bert)'; Hirn, Andreas; 'Harry Lewis'; McDonald, Ira
Cc: 'firstname.lastname@example.org'; 'email@example.com'; 'firstname.lastname@example.org';
Subject: RE: FIN> finisher mib integration into up3i
Thanks Bert for writing up the very response I wanted to send!
However, I'd caution that this implies updating the Finisher MIB
(RFC 3806) to ensrhine this cleanest solution (i.e., a better
MODULE-COMPLIANCE macro) and there a few cycles in IEEE/ISTO PWG
at present to revise IETF published MIBs (it took us seven years to
get Printer MIB v2 published after the new objects were defined).
I'd be happy to write up the ASN.1 and new body text as a proposal.
Harry and Ron - this is a trivial piece of ASN.1. Should we consider
a Finisher MIB v2 to clarify this important conformance detail?
- Ira (co-editor of Finisher MIB)
Ira McDonald (Musician / Software Architect)
Blue Roof Music / High North Inc
PO Box 221 Grand Marais, MI 49839
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Wijnen, Bert (Bert) [mailto:email@example.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, June 07, 2005 5:09 AM
> To: Hirn, Andreas; 'Harry Lewis'; 'McDonald, Ira'
> Cc: 'firstname.lastname@example.org'; 'email@example.com'; 'firstname.lastname@example.org';
> Subject: RE: FIN> finisher mib integration into up3i
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: email@example.com [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org]On Behalf Of Hirn,
> > Andreas
> > Sent: Tuesday, June 07, 2005 10:44
> > To: 'Harry Lewis'; 'McDonald, Ira'
> > Cc: Hirn, Andreas; 'email@example.com'; 'firstname.lastname@example.org';
> > 'email@example.com'; 'firstname.lastname@example.org'
> > Subject: FIN> finisher mib integration into up3i
> > Hi Harry and Ira,
> > here another question concerning finisher mib integration into up3i.
> > Last time we decided, that finishing devices have to act as
> stand alone
> > devices. This means that they have to implement the printer
> mib additionally
> > to the finishing mib.
> > The problem now is: The printer mib has mandatory tables
> which are not
> > present in some finishing devices. What should we do with
> > these tables.
> You can (even in a separate document) define an additional
> statement (for example name it :
> prtMIBFinisherDeviceCompliance) and in that
> statement you only list the groups that make sense for such a device.
> A matter of getting consensus on in your wg. Finisher devices can then
> claim the new compliance instead of the prMIB or prtMIB2
> compliance that
> they cannot achieve.
> Hope this helps,
> > In the moment we think that the tables prtGeneralGroup,
> > prtMediaPathGroup,prtConsoleGroup, prtAlertTableGroup have to
> > be present in
> > every finishing device.
> > But not all finishers have the tables prtInputGroup, prtOutputGroup,
> > prtMarkerGroup, prtChannelGroup, prtInterpreterGroup.
> > We have some ideas what to do with these printer mib tables,
> > which are not
> > present in the finishing devices, but they all have some
> > disadvantages:
> > 1.) The tables can be leaved out.
> > Disadvantage: Maybe not complient to the mib rules.
> > 2.) A kind of dummy implementation could be provided.
> > Disadvantage: Its not clear which values have to be used
> > as dummies.
> > What do you think about the problem. Is there a good solution?
> > Best regards,
> > Andreas Hirn
> > _____________________________________
> > Andreas Hirn
> > Software Development
> > Océ Printing Systems GmbH
> > Siemensallee 2
> > 85586 Poing, Germany
> > Direct Dial +49-8121-72 4029
> > Direct Fax +49-8121-72 31 73
> > mailto: Andreas.Hirn@ops.de
> > www.oce.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Jun 22 2005 - 10:52:10 EDT