Web-based Imaging Management Services: RE: WIMS> Reflections

RE: WIMS> Reflections on a (MIB) walk

From: McDonald, Ira (imcdonald@sharplabs.com)
Date: Fri Sep 02 2005 - 13:36:20 EDT

  • Next message: wamwagner@comcast.net: "WIMS> CIM> September 8 CIM concall at 2 PM EDT"

    Hi,

    There's a serious problem with Harry's suggestion below:

    "In the absence of a firm commitment to achieve this your
    recommendation to mandate (for WIMS) only essential elements
    that are known to be well supported is a good one."

    There is NO common set of well supported objects in Printer MIB.
    I've been looking at MIB walks of Printer MIB for the last decade.
    Each manufacturer and each _product_ puts more or less effort into
    getting the Printer MIB objects "right". So far, I've never
    personally reviewed a MIB walk of a Printer MIB implementation that
    did not contain at least one technical error (most have many).

    The 80/20 rule could easily become the 20/1 rule (one percent
    of objects consistently implemented). Counter and status objects
    are particularly flaky in most products.

    Nonetheless, the Printer MIB (in some form) is one of ONLY two widely
    implemented standards in the printing industry (the other being the
    IEEE 1284 spec).

    Note that consistency of implementations is probably worse for IPP.
    But since the last IPP bakeoff preceded almost all the extensions,
    we don't really know.

    Cheers,
    - Ira

    Ira McDonald (Musician / Software Architect)
    Blue Roof Music / High North Inc
    PO Box 221 Grand Marais, MI 49839
    phone: +1-906-494-2434
    email: imcdonald@sharplabs.com
    -----Original Message-----
    From: owner-wims@pwg.org [mailto:owner-wims@pwg.org]On Behalf Of Harry Lewis
    Sent: Friday, September 02, 2005 12:23 AM
    To: wamwagner@comcast.net
    Cc: 'wims@pwg.org'
    Subject: Re: WIMS> Reflections on a (MIB) walk

    Bill, I think ALL standards participants can stand a regular healthy
    reminder about the 80/20 rule... how we should keep focused on standardizing
    well the 20% of objects, elements or attributes that will provide 80% of
    the key interoprable function. Your findings, although not specific, do act
    as such a reminder.

    I have been urging in past Plenary and Steering Committee meetings that one
    of the most beneficial services the PWG can provide is further Printer MIB
    interop testing. In the absence of a firm commitment to achieve this your
    recommendation to mandate (for WIMS) only essential elements that are known
    to be well supported is a good one.
    ----------------------------------------------
    Harry Lewis
    IBM STSM
    Chairman - IEEE-ISTO Printer Working Group
    http://www.pwg.org
    IBM Printing Systems
    http://www.ibm.com/printers
    303-924-5337
    ----------------------------------------------

    wamwagner@comcast.net
    Sent by: owner-wims@pwg.org
    09/01/2005 06:37 PM To"'wims@pwg.org'" <wims@pwg.org>
    cc
    SubjectWIMS> Reflections on a (MIB) walk

    I just had occasion to MIB walk through a few implementations of a table or
    two in the printer MIB, in several standard products including some from the
    most predominant members of the industry. Remembering the discussion and
    consideration that went into the objects, it is an eye opener to see with
    what carelessness (or is it intentional sabotage) these things are
    implemented. Granted, looking at the spec after all this time, there are
    some ambiguities. But it often looks like someone just thru in arbitrary
    values for some objects. "Mandatory" means nothing. Since most management
    applications use private mibs, manufacturers appear not to put any effort
    into validating the general MIB.Or else the objects are of so little use
    that no one cares if the values are valid.
      
    Aside from being discouraging, I think there is a lesson here that we may
    apply to our on-going work. Keep things simple; don't expect that anyone
    cares if you label an element mandatory; if they have a use for it, it
    will be implemented. Let's not slavishly import things from the printer MIB
    or other sources, or even strive for completeness. The criteria for
    inclusion must be the clear need for the element as evidenced by existing
    use or indisputable future requirement.
      
    As for having a Printer MIB 2 cook-off (a non-proprietary bake-off), getting
    consistent implementations may be important to some people, but apparently
    not to manufacturers. I doubt anyone would come.
      
    Bill Wagner



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Sep 02 2005 - 13:33:50 EDT