PMP Mail Archive: Re[2]: PMP> Printer MIB questions from the field

Re[2]: PMP> Printer MIB questions from the field

Bill Wagner (bwagner@digprod.com)
Thu, 20 Feb 1997 18:57:11 -0500

Matt,

This specific question came up very pointedly when the HRMIB groups
were suggested for inclusion by reference. Hopefully Steve Waldbusser
will substantiate my recollection that the reference was considered as
being to a group definition in a different MIB, and was at the group
level, not the MIB level. This was perhaps akin to using textual
conventions defined in some other MIB. Therefore, requirements of the
MIB from which the group was copped are not inherently transferred.

With this interpretation, such inclusion is as part of the printer MIB
and does not constitute compliant implementation of the HR MIB.
Whether a manufacturer wants to implement the HR MIB and what
constitutes compliant implementation of the HR MIB seems a completely
different question and has no bearing on compliant implementation of
the Printer MIB.



Bill Wagner, DPI

______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________
Subject: Re: PMP> Printer MIB questions from the field
Author: emking@lexmark.com at Internet
Date: 2/20/97 12:58 PM

Bill,

WARNING: Philosophical statement ahead!

If rfc1514 states that the System group (along with the Storage and
Device groups) are mandatory, can rfc1759 make the System group optional
when used in conjunction with Printer-MIB? If so, when a vendor
implements only the Storage and Device groups, did they implement the
Host Resources MIB?

--Matt King

Bill Wagner wrote:
>
>
> Harry,
>
> Just one note on your excellent summary. Relative to your statement:
>
> Specifically, the Printer MIB calls out support for the hrSystem Group
> (although recent interoperability testing has shown this to be of
> little use to printers), hrStorage Group and hrDevice Group.
>
> As far as I can ascertain, RFC1759 does not call out support for the
> hrSystem group (other than saying that this group, along with Running
Software,
> etc. can be implemented at the discression of the manufacturer). Perhaps the
> conclusion of the interopability testing just confirms what was considerd in
> the printer MIB originally.
>
> Bill Wagner, DPI

-- 
Matt King                                     Opinions are my own and
Staff Engineer                                    are not necessarily
Lexmark International, Inc.                          those of Lexmark
emking@lexmark.com