Subject: Re: FIN> Comments on FIN MIB draft

From: Harry Lewis <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 24 Feb 1998 12:48:45 -0500

One way to avoid compatility and proper MIB design concerns...

>> Pages 14-15:
>> The optional Extended Finisher Device Group should be defined as a NEW
>> table that AUGMENTS the Finisher Device Group table. The printer MIB is
>> the only MIB I know of that defines subsets of an ENTRY sequence as
>> optional. This is incorrect MIB design, and we should not repeat this
>> error this just because it was done in the printer MIB.
>>
>This was patterned after the Printer MIB, since it is intended that the
>Finisher MIB be combined into the Printer MIB, someday.  I was not aware
>that this is incorrect MIB design.  So, should we match the format of the
>Printer MIB and, if the documents are eventually integrated, they are
>uniform?  Or, do we follow your proposed structure?  What about SNMPv1
>compatibility with Augmenting?

... might be to AVOID the use of optional groups, altogether. I'd like to
try to only define the subset we would consider mandatory (useful) right
from the start, if possible. Printer MIB optional objects have me somewhat
disillusioned.

Harry Lewis - IBM Printing Systems