I am fine with the proposed changes. Happy to expand the uses as long as
it doesn't change the underlying usefulness.
Mike Fenelon
Microsoft
-----Original Message-----
From: pmp-owner at pwg.org [mailto:pmp-owner at pwg.org] On Behalf Of Bergman,
Ron
Sent: Tuesday, January 18, 2005 11:53 AM
To: Haapanen, Tom; McDonald, Ira; pmp at pwg.org
Subject: RE: PMP> Draft MIB comments
Tom,
I just spoke with Ira and he agrees to support the recommended changes.
1) Rework ppmPortLprQueueName to possibly ppmPortServiceNameOrURL.
2) Add a new object such as ppmPortSourcePortsRestricted.
That should cover all your listed requirements (even AppleTalk and SMB).
IPDS would be covered by the Port Number. Please let us know ASAP if
this is not adequate.
I haven't heard from Microsoft folks yet but I don't believe they will
object.
Regards,
Ron
-----Original Message-----
From: Haapanen, Tom [mailto:tomh at waterloo.equitrac.com]
Sent: Tuesday, January 18, 2005 10:03 AM
To: 'McDonald, Ira'; pmp at pwg.org
Cc: Bergman, Ron
Subject: RE: PMP> Draft MIB comments
Ira,
I'm happy to work within those deadlines. And I am planning to attend
the
April meeting as well. I do regret not finding out about the initiative
earlier, but it's unfortunately too late to do anything about that now.
If I understand correctly, the goal of the port MIB is to enable
automatic
printer installation -- something both Microsoft and we want to be able
to
accomplish. I also understand that duplication with the printer MIB is
undesirable. And in that case ...
... would it not make sense to remove the LPR queue name from the port
MIB?
... and will the vendors be willing to update their printer MIB support
at
the same time as they implement the port MIB? If they will not be, that
will limit the usefulness of the port MIB.
Tom
-----Original Message-----
From: McDonald, Ira [mailto:imcdonald at sharplabs.com]
Sent: Tuesday, 18 January 2005 12:45
To: 'Haapanen, Tom'; McDonald, Ira; pmp at pwg.org
Cc: 'Bergman, Ron'
Subject: RE: PMP> Draft MIB comments
Hi Tom,
Of course Equitrac's input merits consideration!!!
Unfortunately I guess you missed the previous drafts and discussion
since
last November. Microsoft has asked to bring this MIB to content closure
within the next month at the latest, in order to move it into their
Longhorn
printing planning cycle.
By PWG Process v2.0 rules, we must bring a 'last call'
to closure during a PWG face-to-face (next one in April).
Therefore, we have a pretty hard target of entering 'last call' no later
than 1 March 2005 (to allow an extra long final review period for
implementors).
If more info is needed for LPR in 'prtChannelInformation', then the
appropriate fix is to update 'PrtChannelTypeTC'
in the IANA registry with the new keywords and info, not to expand the
'competition' between the Port MIB and Printer MIB v2.
Updating the IANA registry is simple and straightforward (the PWG is the
responsible authority for revisions).
I personally regret the LPR-specific info in the Port MIB, but it was
proposed originally and requested by Microsoft in their prototype last
November.
I personally consider that adding more protocol-specific info to the
Port
MIB is a very bad idea - it will lead to inconsistent info with Printer
MIB
v2 - and it will lead to confusion in the printing industry, by implying
that it is less important for vendors to correctly and promply upgrade
to
Printer MIB v2 (which has other quite important objects added).
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 at sharplabs.com