> Jay expressed the problems that he is having dealing with the various
> implementation choices that printer MIB implementors have chosen for
> generating traps when a user pulls out the tray...
>
> Either management applications have to deal with such diversity or we have
> to tighten up conformance requirements.
I vote for tightening up the conformance requirements, or at the very least,
tighten up the semantics for the large number of common alert events.
> I haven't thought too hard about how I would implement a management
> application using the Printer MIB events. But I would think that I would
> design to expect any possible event dealing with media and would have code
> that supports any of them.
Well, we here at Underscore have thought *very* hard on how to implement
a mgmt app for the Printer MIB. Sorry, but SMOP (simple matter of programming)
is not the solution of choice for us. It's really best that we tighten up
the set of alerts that correspond with the large number of common printer
problems.
Such tightening should start once we get the test plan down for the alleged
upcoming bake-off. (I say "alleged" as we have yet to nail down the specifics
for this event.)
Once the first draft of the test plan is published (hopefully later this
week), then we can start to discuss and specify which alerts should be
posted for which events, etc.
...jay
----------------------------------------------------------------------
-- JK Martin | Email: jkm@underscore.com --
-- Underscore, Inc. | Voice: (603) 889-7000 --
-- 41C Sagamore Park Road | Fax: (603) 889-2699 --
-- Hudson, NH 03015-4915 | Web: http://www.underscore.com --
----------------------------------------------------------------------