/* - - -S-I-G-N-A-T-U-R-E- -B-L-O-C-K- - -
Jay R. Cummings
NetWare Server/Services Manageability Development Team
Development Manager
Novell, Inc. -- where *Everything's Connected*
Prv-D-12-1
122 East 1700 South
Provo, Utah 84606
Phone: 1-800-453-1267 x.1-3895
(801) 861-3895
Fax: (801) 861-7520
INTERNET: jay_cummings@novell.com
- - -S-I-G-N-A-T-U-R-E- -B-L-O-C-K- - - */
Received: from lists.underscore.com (uscore.xtdl.com) by fpk-mx.fpk.novell.com ; 2 AUG 96 16:04:34 EDT
Received: from localhost (daemon@localhost) by lists.underscore.com (8.7.5/8.7.3) with SMTP id QAA10508; Fri, 2 Aug 1996 16:06:26 -0400 (EDT)
Received: by pwg.org (bulk_mailer v1.5); Fri, 2 Aug 1996 16:05:41 -0400
Received: (from daemon@localhost) by lists.underscore.com (8.7.5/8.7.3) id QAA10395 for pwg-outgoing; Fri, 2 Aug 1996 16:02:05 -0400 (EDT)
Message-ID: <m0umQJF-000US2C@uscore.underscore.com>
Content-Length: 1674
Sender: owner-pwg@pwg.org
Date: Fri, 02 Aug 1996 13:54:00 -0600
From: JK Martin <jkm@underscore.com>
To: bpenteco@boi.hp.com
Cc: pwg@pwg.org
Subject: RE: Draft of the new prtGeneralPrinterName MIB object
Bob,
> The description says:
> The value
> of this object can be any arbitrary string as long as it
> is unique among all other instances within the Host Resources
> MIB device table.
>
> Is it required to be unique or is it highly recommended? (I realize that it
> doesn't make sense to have the same name for all the printers, but should
> the printer be expected to reject a value?)
Hmmm... You raise an interesting point with "required" vs. "highly
recommended".
First off, everyone should note that for typical network printers
there will be only one instance of a "Printer device" in the HR MIB,
so your point is not really applicable for such implementations.
Where it really matters is for a host-based agent implementation that
provides Printer MIB support for multiple, direct-attached printers
(ie, connected to the host via serial and/or parallel interfaces).
So, in the host-based scenario, you might ask whether the SNMP agent
should reject a SNMP Set command that attempts to set the printer
administrative name to a value already used by another printer in
the HR MIB.
Good question. If the agent does NOT reject the duplicate value, then
software such as ours will BREAK (or at least not present what the user
thought was the associated printer). Does this situation sound acceptable
to you?
My opinion? The agent should reject the value.
Are there any other similar situations in MIB-land to which we can
refer (based on existing practice/experience)?
Jay Cummings (and other Novell folken): what do you folks have to
say about this situation (since you have this very problem)?
...jay