PMP Mail Archive: PMP> Traps

PMP> Traps

Chris Wellens (chrisw@iwl.com)
Thu, 3 Apr 1997 11:33:48 -0800 (PST)

Another item for the list of outstanding issues is the traps.
We had 100% failure from all vendors on this at the
interoperability testing in February. (These were part of the
IWL tests.) At first, we thought there was something wrong with
the test, but when we loaded up our agent simulator with RFC
1759 we were able to generate a trap and test it just fine. I
suspect that the printers that did support traps were configured
in such a way so that the trap was not getting sent to the IWL
Test Suite, but rather another application on the system. At
least, I hope that was the situation. Harry's earlier email on
this (included below) seems to confirm this.

We will need to come up with a solution in order to advance to
DRAFT standard. The solution could be a standard method of
registering traps for printers, or we could delete the
discussion of traps entirely. Whether traps are mandatory or
optional, we are still faced with the requirement of having two
interoperable (consistently implemented) implementations of the
feature. Right now, we don't have that.

Suggestions are welcome!

Harry's original mail:

("Harry Lewis) @ SMTP
Date: 02/20/97 09:02:51 AM
Subject: PMP> Registering for Traps

I don't have a specific proposal at this point but I'd like to raise the
idea of a standard method of registering for traps. I think we discovered
at the bake-off that every vendor has a means to register buried in their
private mib somewhere. This means, a management app wanting traps, has to
know each vendors means of registering.

Is anyone following the development of SNMPv3 to know if this will be covered,
or if it's handled in the (defunct) v2?

I wouldn't even care if it was printer MIB specific, although I guess thats
some form of SNMP blaspheme.

Anyone care to share ideas on this? Should we forget it and just look to IPP
for the answer?

Harry Lewis - IBM Printing Systems