Subject: Re: JMP> Straw vote request: interest in splitting the Job MIB into two MIBs

From: Tom Hastings <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 12 May 1997 08:07:46 PDT

No.  Lets not separate the monitoring and the accounting MIB.

If you buy the catergorization of the attributes in attr-tab, there are only
4 out of 78 attributes that are there only for accounting-only (A):
jobAccountName(16), printQualityUsed(39), tonerEconomyUsed(41), and
tonerDensityUsed(43).  The rest are there for monitoring jobs only (M) or
are there for both monitoring and accounting (MA).  

There are 31 attributes for monitoring only (M), and 43 for monitoring and
accounting (MA).  So separating into a monitoring MIB would have 74
attributes and the accounting MIB would have the additional 4 attributes,
assuming that the accounting MIB augmented the monitoring MIB, so that when
doing accounting, you also had to implment the monitoring MIB.  Not a very
convincing argument to separate the MIB into montirong and accounting!

#	Attribute	I/O	TC	M	>1	L	S	M/A	S/D	S/P/D/A	states
16	jobAccountName	O						A	S	S	a
39	printQualityUsed	I	TC		>1			A	S	D	Com
41	tonerEcomonyUsed	I	TC		>1			A	S	D	Com
43	tonerDensityUsed	I			>1			A	S	D	Com

At 12:01 05/09/97 PDT, JK Martin wrote:
>At this risk of ticking off our fine chairman (Ron Bergman), I'd
>like to ask everyone to participate in a quick-and-dirty straw vote.
>
>Stuart Rowley commented:
>
>>      Jay said he is starting to like the sound of a Job State MIB and a Job 
>>      Attribute MIB.  Maybe this isn't as far fetched as it sounds.  Like 
>>      Harry, I view the monitoring and accounting aspects of the MIB as 
>>      addressing distinctly different needs.  Perhaps we should separate the 
>>      MIB to meet these different needs.  We sure could make a simple Job 
>>      State MIB which would likely be implemented across the board!
>
>How many others feel this way?  (And how many others are opposed?)
>
>Would it be possible for all list participants to post their one-word
>opinion/vote on this question:
>
>  Are you in favor of the JMP group exploring the potential for
>  splitting the current Job Monitoring MIB into two separate MIBs,
>  one that focuses on job status and the other for job accounting?
>
>Just a simple "Yes" or "No" is being requested; if you want to add
>something to the discussion, then great!  But let's at least see
>whether this is a topic worth investigating *before* the San Diego
>meetings next week.
>
>	...jay
>
>