PWG Mail Archive: Re: Respose to Minutes

Re: Respose to Minutes

Randy Turner (rturner@sharplabs.com)
Wed, 4 Sep 1996 09:21:05 -0700

On Sep 3, 7:52pm, Bill Wagner wrote:
> Subject: Respose to Minutes
> Looking through the PMP/PWG notes, some issues are not quite clear.
>
> 1. Evolution of the Interfaces Group.
>
> The resolution is not identified. Presumably the intent is to
> reference RFC1213. What about the use of the extended interface types
> in RFC1573?

We are trying to limit our dependence on other MIBs to accelerate our
advancement to "DRAFT" standard, with the subsequent publishing of a new
RFC. Unless we attempt to augment or reference RFC 1573 for something that
is severely broken, I think the decision to stick with RFC 1213 interfaces
is pretty sound, considering 1213 is a "FULL" internet standard.

>
> 2. Serial Number and Administratively Assigned Name.
>
> Can we put these in a separate group so that they can be conditionally
> mandatory? I guess we can end the fiction that the MIB is for all
> printers. Obviously it is only for higher end network printers. The
> argument that components have serial numbers is not valid, since it is
> only high-end optional components that do. Obviously, I would have
> voted against this.

When I was at QMS, we shipped a $1200 laser printer with a serial number, I
don't see serial numbers as high end features. Alot of these printers have
serial numbers stamped on the back but do not have these serial numbers
mirrored into ROM or NVRAM. In this particular case, we are giving these
printers a placeholder in the MIB for this information, should they want to
use it. The only disadvantage I see is that it will require non-volatile
memory space to really be used effectively.

Of course, if the printers use BOOTP or DHCP to auto-configure, this
information could be obtained dynamically each time the printer is booted.
The serial number and ID could then be written into RAM and later referenced
by the agent.

>
> 3. Localization
>
> I know I may not always be clear, but I cannot figure out how one of
> my emails was taken to be a comment on localization. Hope it was a
> good discussion.
>
> 4. Channel Type
>
> As Jay pointed out, the e-mail requested changes between port 9100 and
> AppSocket do not reflect what was originally submitted by Adobe or HP.
> The changes and the origin of these changes should be identified.

See the latest draft of the Printer MIB on the FTP server and please make
comments if these changes are incorrect. These changes (and others) have
already been made in the latest draft (dated August 1996).