attachment-0001

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN"> <HTML><HEAD> <META HTTP-EQUIV="Content-Type" CONTENT="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1"> <META content="MSHTML 6.00.2900.2523" name=GENERATOR></HEAD> <BODY> <DIV>Thursday (3/31) 10:00 AM PST is OK for me.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>    Ron</DIV> <BLOCKQUOTE> <DIV class=OutlookMessageHeader dir=ltr align=left>-----Original Message----- From: Harry Lewis [mailto:harryl@us.ibm.com] Sent: Tuesday, March 29, 2005 11:14 AM To: McDonald, Ira Cc: Dennis Carney; 'Ivan Pavicevic'; pmp@pwg.org; Bergman, Ron Subject: RE: PMP> Comments on Printer Port Monitor MIB 1.0 working draft d ated March 21, 2005 </DIV> There are enough differing viewpoints that a conference call may be in order to help sort this topic and clear up some of the misunderstandings. If a core group can agree on a time I will distribute the dial-in information. This doesn't necessarily have to be a repeating time slot. I'd like to get this ironed out before Tokyo. I will start out suggesting Thursday 3/31 10AM PST, 1PM EST (directly following the PWG Steering Committee call). Please indicate the possibility of your attending or suggest a different time. ---------------------------------------------- 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 ---------------------------------------------- <TABLE width="100%"> <TBODY> <TR vAlign=top> <TD width="40%">"McDonald, Ira" <imcdonald@sharplabs.com> Sent by: pmp-owner@pwg.org 03/28/2005 02:01 PM <TD width="59%"> <TABLE width="100%"> <TBODY> <TR vAlign=top> <TD> <DIV align=right>To</DIV> <TD>"'Ivan Pavicevic'" <ivanp@windows.microsoft.com>, "Bergman, Ron" <Ron.Bergman@rpsa.ricoh.com>, Dennis Carney/Boulder/IBM@IBMUS, pmp@pwg.org, "McDonald, Ira" <imcdonald@sharplabs.com> <TR vAlign=top> <TD> <DIV align=right>cc</DIV> <TD> <TR vAlign=top> <TD> <DIV align=right>Subject</DIV> <TD>RE: PMP> Comments on Printer Port Monitor MIB 1.0 working draft d        ated March 21, 2005</TR></TBODY></TABLE> <TABLE> <TBODY> <TR vAlign=top> <TD> <TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE> </TR></TBODY></TABLE> <TT>Hi, Please - will people stop just saying 'in the MIB'.  Only Ivan has spoken precisely enough in this thread (by always saying either 'HR MIB' or 'Printer MIB' explicitly) to make his meaning clear. And since you all three (Ivan, Ron, Dennis) just quietly _disagreed_ because of obscurity about what's a 'port' and what's 'static' in a configuration, let me try once more. [Per Ivan] - Status in Longhorn TcpMon comes ONLY from Host Resources MIB - Ports in the 'ppmPortTable' should NOT be deleted when  the software/hardware status of a 'port' changes  - because the Longhorn TcpMon tool will only read the    'ppmPortTable' _once_ (to find 'hrDeviceIndex' values) - Configuration (but NOT status) in Longhorn TcpMon comes from  Printer MIB - All 'ports' that have the same 'hrDeviceIndex' will always have  the same displayed status in TcpMon Ron and Dennis - please let's not waste time on discussing how the Printer MIB was meant to be used.  The Printer MIB isn't even in the logic path for 'port' status in Longhorn's TcpMon. 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: Ivan Pavicevic [mailto:ivanp@windows.microsoft.com] Sent: Monday, March 28, 2005 3:04 PM To: Bergman, Ron; Dennis Carney; pmp@pwg.org; McDonald, Ira Subject: RE: PMP> Comments on Printer Port Monitor MIB 1.0 working draft dated March 21, 2005 TcpMon will use the hrDeviceIndex to query for the printer status from Host Resource MIB and to query for the printer configuration from the Printer MIB (support for new features in Longhorn OS). From the TcpMon perspective, if hrDeviceIndex is reused in the multiport device, queries described above will hit the same MIB object for different ports. If this is acceptable for the printer device then we are fine with this. Note that TcpMon will get data from the Port MIB during printer installation to allow the user to make a choice between different ports. If the printer removes the port entry from the table in the Port MIB due to the functioning failure, the port won't be listed as an option to be picked by the user. Hence I agree that the Port MIB should reflect configuration of the ports, not the status. Thanks, Ivan From: pmp-owner@pwg.org [mailto:pmp-owner@pwg.org] On Behalf Of Bergman, Ron Sent: Monday, March 28, 2005 10:22 AM To: Dennis Carney; pmp@pwg.org; McDonald, Ira Subject: RE: PMP> Comments on Printer Port Monitor MIB 1.0 working draft dated March 21, 2005 Dennis' comments seem to echo the concern I voiced last week.  And I agree with Dennis that a unique value of hrDeviceIndex is not needed for each service.  I have also reviewed the document and do not find any text that indicates the value of hrDeviceIndex cannot be the same for all services. hrDeviceIndex references a "device" and should not be overloaded to also indicate a port within a device. Although I cannot speak for all printers, in the implementations I am familiar with, it is very unlikely that only an LPR port or a raw socket port is "down".  If a port is disabled (per the configuration), as Dennis stated, it will not be present in the MIB.  The MIB should be essentially "Static" and only be modified by a configuration change.    Ron -----Original Message----- From: pmp-owner@pwg.org [mailto:pmp-owner@pwg.org]On Behalf Of Dennis Carney Sent: Monday, March 28, 2005 9:10 AM To: pmp@pwg.org; McDonald, Ira Subject: RE: PMP> Comments on Printer Port Monitor MIB 1.0 working draft d ated March 21, 2005 Hi Ira, I would have said that if specifically the LPR port is down for whatever reason, it wouldn't be listed in the MIB. This opinion was my first (intuitive) reaction, but it also does not seem to be wrong based on a quick reading of the document. Is there a feeling among the people who have been working the most on this MIB that it is supposed to be "static"--have essentially hard-coded rows and values for a given printer model? If so, this should probably be made clear in the document. Dennis Carney IBM Printing Systems "McDonald, Ira" <imcdonald@sharplabs.com> "McDonald, Ira" <imcdonald@sharplabs.com> 03/27/2005 09:30 AM To Dennis Carney/Boulder/IBM@IBMUS, "McDonald, Ira" <imcdonald@sharplabs.com>, pmp@pwg.org cc Subject RE: PMP> Comments on Printer Port Monitor MIB 1.0 working draft d ated March 21, 2005 Hi Dennis, OK - I probably picked an unwise example. If one software channel (LPR) is down, because the thread crashed (or the operator took down the LPR service), then EVERY software channel is going to show as down, on your network printer (remember MS does NOT read Printer MIB). You're conflating all hardware status with the software status of channels/interpreters. But you're welcome to decide this is 'normal' behavior. 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: Dennis Carney [mailto:dcarney@us.ibm.com] Sent: Saturday, March 26, 2005 4:37 PM To: McDonald, Ira; pmp@pwg.org Subject: RE: PMP> Comments on Printer Port Monitor MIB 1.0 working draft d ated March 21, 2005 Hi Ira, Ira wrote: >If a vendor implements a single 'hrDeviceIndex' value for all ports (i.e., channels) >on the "same" printer, then if ANY port is 'down' in 'hrDeviceStatus' they will ALL >be shown 'down' in the MS tools. That's not acceptable behaviour. To me, that *does* seem like acceptable behavior (or if you'd prefer, "behaviour"--is that your proximity to Canada showing? :-). If I am a single network printer advertising both an LPR port and a RAW port, if my one input tray is out of paper, then *both* ports *should* be in an "out of paper" state in the host resources MIB. If instead I want to differentiate between the two (I really can't think of many good reasons to do this on a network printer), I can do this using two different indices into the hr MIB. But I would have guessed that 99% of network printers would simply have all advertised ports (correctly, IMHO) point to the same hr MIB entry. Dennis Carney IBM Printing Systems "McDonald, Ira" <imcdonald@sharplabs.com> "McDonald, Ira" <imcdonald@sharplabs.com> 03/26/2005 09:12 AM To Dennis Carney/Boulder/IBM@IBMUS, pmp@pwg.org cc "Adams, Charles A" <charles.a.adams@office.xerox.com>, "'Bergman, Ron'" <Ron.Bergman@rpsa.ricoh.com>, mfenelon@windows.microsoft.com Subject RE: PMP> Comments on Printer Port Monitor MIB 1.0 working draft d ated March 21, 2005 Hi Dennis, The Introduction and Background were recently added, for boilerplate reasons. They are not authoritative and in fact have not been reviewed. Microsoft is NOT using the Printer MIB for status at all in Longhorn (per Mike Fenelon). The 'hrDeviceTable' and 'hrPrinterTable' in the Host Resources MIB are the only status that will be displayed by Longhorn for printer ports. If a vendor implements a single 'hrDeviceIndex' value for all ports (i.e., channels) on the "same" printer, then if ANY port is 'down' in 'hrDeviceStatus' they will ALL be shown 'down' in the MS tools. That's not acceptable behaviour. 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: Dennis Carney [mailto:dcarney@us.ibm.com] Sent: Friday, March 25, 2005 2:43 PM To: pmp@pwg.org Cc: Adams, Charles A; McDonald, Ira; 'Bergman, Ron'; mfenelon@windows.microsoft.com Subject: RE: PMP> Comments on Printer Port Monitor MIB 1.0 working draft d ated March 21, 2005 Ira, My reading of the "Introduction" and the "Background" of the document seems to make it clear that the main MS model *IS* an embedded printer. Mike Fenelon, is it really true that your port monitor makes it such that each port *has to* have a different ppmPortHrDeviceIndex? If a network printer implemented this MIB and advertised both an LPR and a RAW port, would you really have a problem if both ports had a ppmPortHrDeviceIndex of 1? Dennis "McDonald, Ira" <imcdonald@sharplabs.com> "McDonald, Ira" <imcdonald@sharplabs.com> Sent by: pmp-owner@pwg.org 03/25/2005 09:14 AMTo "'Bergman, Ron'" <Ron.Bergman@rpsa.ricoh.com>, "McDonald, Ira" <imcdonald@sharplabs.com>, "Adams, Charles A" <charles.a.adams@office.xerox.com>, pmp@pwg.org cc Subject RE: PMP> Comments on Printer Port Monitor MIB 1.0 working draft d ated March 21, 2005 Hi Ron, Going all the way back to the first Microsoft draft and ever since, it's clear that the MS "port" entry has to have a separate device index for each port, because the 'hr...' status objects have to be separate for EACH port.   Remember the main MS model is NOT an embedded printer.  It's either an external network adaptor or a spooler.  In both of these cases, only ONE protocol is being exposed fore each "port". This isn't a new restriction. In the case of an external network adaptor, each "port" is literally a different direct-connect printer. 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: Bergman, Ron [mailto:Ron.Bergman@rpsa.ricoh.com] Sent: Thursday, March 24, 2005 3:03 PM To: McDonald, Ira; Adams, Charles A; pmp@pwg.org Subject: RE: PMP> Comments on Printer Port Monitor MIB 1.0 working draft dated March 21, 2005 Ira, Regarding your comment: 2. ppmPortHrDeviceIndex - This seems to imply an hrDeviceTable entry is needed for each port on the system. Is this the expected behavior? Or is this just the hrDeviceIndex of the printer? Or is the the hrDeviceIndex for the network card? <ira>  For the Microsoft tool (TCPMon), EACH port (channel) has to have a separate 'hrDeviceIndex' - this is different than typical Printer MIB implementations, but it's a Microsoft tool limitation. Note that Microsoft TCPMon _only_ supports LPR and Raw ports (no other protocol is supported or contemplated according to co-editor Mike Fenelon from the Microsoft Longhorn printing team), so this only means two 'hrDeviceIndex' values at most (for each printer). </ira> I do not recall ever hearing this.  It certainly is not clear from the MIB text (see below) that this is the case.  If this is true then it is not really hrDeviceIndex that is indicated but is just ppmPortIndex. Also, for the printers I work with there will be a minimum of 10 ports reported.  If IPP is enable, there will be a minimum of 15. The maximum number will be 192. Ron From the MIB: ppmPortHrDeviceIndex OBJECT-TYPE SYNTAX      Integer32 (0..2147483647) MAX-ACCESS  read-only STATUS      current DESCRIPTION "The value of 'hrDeviceIndex' in the IETF Host Resources MIB (RFC 1514/2790), to be used for status queries for this port if the value of 'ppmPortSnmpStatusQueryEnabled' is 'true'. If this object is zero, then monitoring applications MUST NOT attempt status queries for this port in the IETF Host Resources MIB (RFC 1514/2790) and/or IETF Printer MIB (RFC 1759/3805)." REFERENCE "hrDeviceStatus, hrPrinterStatus, hrPrinterDetectedErrorState i n IETF Host Resources MIB (RFC 1514/2790). prtChannelStatus in IETF Printer MIB (RFC 1759/3805)." DEFVAL      { 0 }                   -- no host device index ::= { ppmPortEntry 7 } </TT> </BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML>