Just to close the loop. Bert is correct, the change to read only was only
to eliminate compiler errors. To my knowledge no printers ever implemented
this object as read-only. Attempts to read will only return an error.
Ron
-----Original Message-----
From: Wijnen, Bert (Bert) [mailto:bwijnen@lucent.com]
Sent: Wednesday, November 14, 2001 8:53 AM
To: McDonald, Ira; 'Juergen Schoenwaelder'; Ron.Bergman@Hitachi-hkis.com
Cc: dbh@enterasys.com; bwijnen@lucent.com; Ron.Bergman@Hitachi-hkis.com;
harryl@us.ibm.com; Casterline, Ray; pmp@pwg.org; paf@cisco.com;
ned.freed@mrochek.com
Subject: RE: Print MIB 09
If you make it read-only, then you still get compiler warning/errors
that the prtAlertIndex is not contained in any group.
If you were to add it to a group, then that is an incompatible change.
Now... from earlier email from Ron, my understanding was that the
vendors/people would only "fix" the mib file in order for compilers
to work. (by the way, SMICng has a #addOpt 'N' flag that suppresses
the warning/error... Juergen, SMIlint probably has such a thing too?)
It was not clear to me that people had implemented the object read-only.
Are you telling me that you can do a GET prtAlertIndex.1 and that
it will return the value 1??
Bert
> -----Original Message-----
> From: McDonald, Ira [mailto:IMcDonald@crt.xerox.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, November 14, 2001 5:44 PM
> To: 'Juergen Schoenwaelder'; Ron.Bergman@Hitachi-hkis.com
> Cc: dbh@enterasys.com; bwijnen@lucent.com;
> Ron.Bergman@Hitachi-hkis.com;
> harryl@us.ibm.com; Casterline, Ray; pmp@pwg.org; paf@cisco.com;
> ned.freed@mrochek.com; McDonald, Ira
> Subject: RE: Print MIB 09
>
>
> Hi Juergen,
>
> This is a tough question. For six years now every Xerox product has
> shipped with 'prtAlertIndex' at 'read-only' to preserve the content
> of the notification. I have seen this done at several other printer
> vendors. To date, there is no identified shipping implementation
> that leaves 'prtAlertIndex' at 'not-accessible' (that was only one
> of several compile errors in the RFC 1759 text - I've never seen a
> compiler that would accept RFC 1759 unmodified, but I suppose it's
> possible).
>
> Our WG concensus to change the published version to 'read-only' is
> in order to align with all known shipping implementations (who all
> did it by hand-edit themselves).
>
> Cheers,
> - Ira McDonald, consulting architect at Xerox
> High North
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Juergen Schoenwaelder [mailto:schoenw@ibr.cs.tu-bs.de]
> Sent: Wednesday, November 14, 2001 2:23 AM
> To: Ron.Bergman@Hitachi-hkis.com
> Cc: dbh@enterasys.com; bwijnen@lucent.com;
> Ron.Bergman@Hitachi-hkis.com;
> harryl@us.ibm.com; rcasterline@crt.xerox.com; pmp@pwg.org;
> paf@cisco.com; ned.freed@mrochek.com; IMcDonald@crt.xerox.com
> Subject: Re: Print MIB 09
>
>
>
> >>>>> Bergman, Ron writes:
>
> Ron> The WG has already discussed the addition of text to explain why
> Ron> prtAlertIndex is broken. In fact is is presently being drafted.
> Ron> We are still not sure if this object must be "not-accessible" or
> Ron> can we change to "read-only". Since with many compilers the MIB
> Ron> must be modified to "read-only", the WG prefers to change the
> Ron> MAX-ACCESS clause. The addition of a new group and conformance
> Ron> statements, in this case, is agreed.
>
> There are existing fielded implementations that implement
> prtAlertIndex not-accessible. So what is the point in making it
> read-only just to kind of fix the notification? If it is true that
> people had problems to implement the notification because
> prtAlertIndex is not-accessible, then this would be a data point to
> actually fix the notification by providing a new one that does it
> right.
>
> Changing prtAlertIndex from not-accessible to read-only to fix the
> notification kind is IMHO heading in the wrong direction.
>
> /js
>
> --
> Juergen Schoenwaelder Technical University Braunschweig
> <schoenw@ibr.cs.tu-bs.de> Dept. Operating Systems & Computer Networks
> Phone: +49 531 391 3289 Muehlenpfordtstr. 23, 38106
> Braunschweig, Germany
> Fax: +49 531 391 5936 <http://www.ibr.cs.tu-bs.de/~schoenw/>
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Nov 14 2001 - 21:03:42 EST