Tom (and Ang),
Yes, the attribute support bit vector and the mirror table do go a long way
towards solving our problem. I guess I understood Angelo's proposal to mean
that a description of the structure of the model would be written
independent of an instance of that model; so I wouldn't expect to see a
description of the Job Monitoring MIB V2 in that description. Would you
think the paper being proposed would include descriptions of the attribute
vector and mirror tables?
JLF
-----Original Message-----
From: Hastings, Tom N [mailto:hastings at cp10.es.xerox.com]
Sent: Thursday, June 10, 1999 2:55 PM
To: Filion, Joseph L; Caruso, Angelo
Cc: jmp
Subject: RE: JMP> FW: Document Action: Job Monitoring MIB - V1 to
Informat ional
Joe,
What about the Job Monitoring MIB V2 that has the attribute support bit
vector and the mirror table? Don't they solve your problem?
I would assume that such a paper would also include the description of Job
Monitoring MIB V2 as well.
Thanks,
Tom
-----Original Message-----
From: Filion, Joseph L
Sent: Thursday, June 10, 1999 11:51
To: Caruso, Angelo; Hastings, Tom N
Cc: jmp
Subject: RE: JMP> FW: Document Action: Job Monitoring MIB - V1 to
Informat ional
Tom and Ang,
Maybe publishing a separate stand-alone document describing the new model
would help (or would have helped), but let's not loose sight of some of the
real issues with the model itself. One issue that continues to bother me is
if you want to get all the information that a printer knows about a job it
is real easy to get from a MIB that uses this model; but if you want to get
two or three specific attributes for all of the jobs, it is very difficult
to do efficiently with this model. Let's face it, we can all think of
management side applications that want to do exactly this, and they cannot
be done without retrieving every bit of data from the table. I am not
saying that this model is not without its merit; I would just like to make
sure that all the pros and cons are on the table.
Thanks,
JLF
-----Original Message-----
From: Caruso, Angelo [mailto:Angelo.Caruso at usa.xerox.com]
Sent: Thursday, June 10, 1999 8:54 AM
To: Hastings, Tom N; jmp
Subject: RE: JMP> FW: Document Action: Job Monitoring MIB - V1 to
Informat ional
Tom,
Perhaps the IETF is taking issue with the fact that we invented a new
information model, built on top of SNMP/SMI, and then just went ahead and
implemented the first instance of this new model, all in one MIB module.
Perhaps we should have published a generic definition of the new model first
as a stand-alone document, and then published the JMP MIB as an example
implementation.
Thanks,
Ang
-----Original Message-----
From: Hastings, Tom N [mailto:hastings at cp10.es.xerox.com]
Sent: Wednesday, June 09, 1999 7:29 PM
To: jmp
Subject: JMP> FW: Document Action: Job Monitoring MIB - V1 to
Informational
The PWG Job Monitoring MIB has been approved by the IESG to be sent out as
an
Informational RFC. However, the IESG doesn't approve of our modeling of
management information. By this I assume they mean the attribute mechanism
that we invented to handle the great variability between implementations.
They also don't recognize the PWG as a standards making body according to
the note.
Tom
-----Original Message-----
From: The IESG [mailto:iesg-secretary at ietf.org]
Sent: Wednesday, June 09, 1999 3:02 PM
Cc: RFC Editor; Internet Architecture Board; pmp at pwg.org
Subject: Document Action: Job Monitoring MIB - V1 to Informational
The IESG has approved the Internet-Draft 'Job Monitoring MIB - V1'
<draft-ietf-printmib-job-monitor-07.txt> as an Informational RFC. This
document is the product of the Printer MIB Working Group. The IESG
contact persons are Keith Moore and Patrik Faltstrom
Note to RFC Editor:
The IESG requests the following text be included as an IESG Note:
This MIB module uses an unconventional scheme for modeling
management information (on top of the SNMP model) which is unique to
this MIB. The IESG recommends against using this document as an
example for the design of future MIBs.
The "Printer Working Group" industry consortium is not an IETF
working group, and the IETF does not recognize the Printer Working
Group as a standards-setting body. This document is being published
solely to provide information to the Internet community regarding a
MIB that might be deployed in the marketplace. Publication of
this document as an RFC is not an endorsement of this MIB.