Subject: JMP> First Comment Set on version 0.7 MIB

From: Ron Bergman <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 17 Mar 1997 19:14:54 -0800 (PST)

Note: Line numbers are from the .pdf version.

line 31:  should be Dataproducts Corp.

line 36:  Harry Lewis should be added to the list of authors.

lines 155-159:  This is a repeat of the abstract and should be removed.

line 164:  "withoutspooling" S/B "without spooling"

line 165:  "comonly"  S/B  "commonly"

line 197:  "will support"  S/B  "supports"

line 199:  "shall support"  S/B  "supports"

line 202:  "will provide"  S/B  "provides"

line 222:  The table grid remains with no text.  S/B removed.

line 223:  S/B "2.  Terminology and Job Model"

lines 234-242:  This paragraph is very confusing.  I propose-

   "A JOB SET is a set of jobs that are queued and scheduled together
    according to a specified scheduling algorithm for a specified device
    or set of devices.  For implementations that embed the SNMP agent in
    the device, the MIB JOB SET normally defines all the jobs known to
    the device.  If implemented in a server for multiple devices, 
    each JOB SET would define a job queue for a specific device."

lines 251-252:  Delete- "The client may or may not also use SNMP and the 
    Job Monitoring MIB to monitor jobs, depending upon implementation."

lines 266-268:  Change to-  "SPOOLING is the act of a DEVICE or SERVER
    of accepting jobs and writing the jobs attributes and document data
    on to a secondary storage."

lines 269-272:  Change to-  "Queuing is the act of a DEVICE or SERVER
    of ordering (queuing) jobs for the purpose of scheduling the jobs
    to be processed."

line 277:  "monitorand"  S/B  "monitor and"

line 348:  How will this table convert to text?  

General comment:  I am not positive, but I believed that a draft
   document had to be in text format to be posted.  If this is true,
   it looks like there is a significant amount of work remaining 
   before this document can be submitted.  Figure 1 especially!
   Comments?

line 556:  There is currently a discussion with respect to the Printer
   MIB regarding Conformance statements.  This section should "conform"
   (no pun intended) to the final outcome in PMP.

line 712:  Since we are not adding any new data types, is this section
   necessary?  I propose section 12 be removed.

line 1632:  Appendices A, B, and C should eventually become a separate
   RFC document.  Should a note be added?

line 1679:  This is good information, but should be pulled from the
   document and included as a separate file on the ftp server.

More to come....

	...Ron Bergman
	Dataproducts Corp.