I'm assuming with the addition of traps for the job monitoring MIB, as
well as the existing printer MIB traps (alerts), and our desire to
include printer MIB alerts, as well as job notifications to IPP, we now
have a completely redundant, overlapping solution set ;) ;)
Randy
-----Original Message-----
From: imcdonal at eso.mc.xerox.com
[SMTP:imcdonal at eso.mc.xerox.com]
Sent: Tuesday, February 17, 1998 8:00 PM
To: jmp at pwg.org; pwg at pwg.org; rbergma at dpc.com
Subject: Re: PWG> Charter: Traps for use with the Job
Monitoring MIB
Hi Ron,
Would you consider having a telecon during the upcoming PWG
meeting
in March, to widen the participation on the Job Mon MIB traps
project discussion? All of the key people at Xerox who have
participated in Xerox (private) specification of job monitoring
traps and trap registration methods are unable to attend in
March
(I know - I've been checking with them).
Thanks for pushing this IMPORTANT issue along. As the first
PWG standard and NOT an IETF standard, I believe the PWG Job
Mon MIB has a unique opportunity to address domain-specific
traps sensibly and MUCH more quickly than could be done
for an IETF 'standards track' document.
To stimultate discussion, my two cents on trap registration
1) SNMPv3 carries way to much security baggage, to be a
good trap registration method
2) There AREN'T any other IETF 'standards track' trap
registration methods
3) A PWG standardized solution for the PWG Job Mon MIB
could also EASILY be a PWG standardized solution
for the IETF/PWG Printer MIB (different OID subtree)
4) A PWG standardized solution could EASILY be SNMP
version independent (ie, SNMPv1, SNMPv1Secure[obsolete],
SNMPv2Historic[RFC144x series], SNMPv2[RFC 190x series],
and SNMPv3 [RFC227x series, last month])
Cheers,
- Ira McDonald