attachment
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">1. Counter MIB. </font>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">Counter Spec. Page 11 Line 388,389. states that usage counters for devices and subunits are NOT being addressed. This being the case the MIB should not include subunit counter definition language for subunits at this time until the counters can be reviewed as to there applicability to the specific subunits that have been defined and new counters defined, if needed, to address specific subunits. </font>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">(e.g. how can Monitoring.CompletedFinisherJobs apply to anything but a finisher subunit, how does the concept of a Job apply to the channel subunit, the inputTray subunit or any subunits other than possibly the interpreter and transformer subunits.)</font>
<br>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">2.Counter Spec. </font>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">The definitions for each counter should include definitions that are one, consistent with any repeated language in the Counter MIB descriptions, and two completely specify the attributes of the counter. The Counter Spec. should explicitely define and state the "units" of each count as well as the initial, reset value and it's "rollover" value (i.e. how many bits, signed or unsigned). </font>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">Example case of a WIMS proxy that's proxying two agents, one implementing the Counter MIB (with mostly 32 bit counters) and one with another management protocol binding that uses either 16 bit or 64 bit counters....does the WIMS proxy manage the rollover cases when relaying information to the WIMS manager....???</font>
<br>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">3. Counter Spec. Page 12 Line 405, grammer error in sentence. Line 417,sentence should read that counters aggregate the totals of like counters with like units....</font>
<br>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">4. Counter Spec. Page 17, grammer error in first sentence of Datastream.BlankImpressions, FCImpressions and HCImpressions definitions.....(use not uses).</font>
<br>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">5. Counter Spec. or MIB. Page 22 Monitoring table: Monitoring.Alerts.....The MIB named it Monitoring.TotalAlerts.....seems more accurate.</font>
<br>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">6. Counter Spec. Page 14, Line 436, word miss-spelled in sentence (should be "sum" not "sub").</font>
<br>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">7. Counter Spec. Page 16, Definition of Job.InputKOctets and OutputKOctets does not match that of the Counter MIB. The Counter MIB's TrafficJobInputKOctets restricts the definition to data recieved over ALL channels. (which is defined as a subunit)....not sure either is correct.</font>
<br>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">8. Counter Spec./MIB...The counter MIB defines TrafficJobInputMessages and TrafficJobOutputMessages..the Counter Spec. does not, but does define Monitoring.InputMessages and Monitoring.Outputs.</font>
<br>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">9. Counter Spec. lists JobInputMessages and JobOutputMessages in 5.3, 5.4, 5.5, 5.6, 5,7 and 5.8. (should be MonitoringInputMessages).</font>
<br>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">10. Counter MIB. The counter MIB needs to explicitly map its naming (or name modification/shortening) of counters to the explicit names in the definitions in Section 4 of the Counter Spec.</font>
<br>
<br>