There is considerable interest in the IPP group on this subject, since
it appears that SNMP traps and/or informs could be one of the possible
notification methods for IPP. Randy did a very good job in Austin of
providing background on SNMPv3 and I would like to further examine this
subject and reach a general consensus as to the direction. The meeting
agenda will consist of two primary topics.
I. Trap/Inform conditions:
The JMP group has defined 11 conditions that could generate a
trap/inform condition. I would like to quickly review these with
the IPP group to insure that this list is adequate. (If time
permits, we will review Tom Hastings proposed definitions for
these items.)
1. Start of job
2. Job completion
3. Job aborted
4. Job canceled
5. Job progress, sheets stacked
6. Job progress, copy completed
7. Job received
8. Job hold notification
9. Job release notification
10. Print deadline exceeded
11. Job accounting information expired
II. Registration methods:
This is presently the most controversial part of the project and I
expect will occupy the majority of the meeting. To prepare for the
meeting, I suggest that everyone review the SNMPv3 documents (RFCs
2271 to 2275) and the Job Async Monitoring MIB (Joe Filion, and Ira
McDonald at ftp://ftp.pwg.org/pub/pwg/jmp/contributions/jam_v010.txt).
I can think of four possible alternatives:
1. Use the SNMPv3 registration MIBS.
2. Use the Job Async Monitoring MIB registration.
3. Create a hybrid with the best of both and maybe new ideas.
4. Send SNMP into the world of deprecation, (and never to be heard
from again).
See you in Portland,
Ron Bergman
Dataproducts Corp.