Subject: JMP> Job Queue Status

From: Harry Lewis <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 19 May 1997 14:24:39 -0400

Harrish, you had two questions.

First... 'what's going on'... with Job MIB changes?

The Job MIB has undergone changes from the January draft based on experience
learned from prototyping. I believe this is a very beneficial part of the IETF
process. If you review the current draft, I think you will agree that all the
desired Job MIB function is still present but operations have been improved.

Second... 'would like to see Job Queue Status put back in...

The JobStateTable (renamed to JobTable at Friday's meeting) should provide you
with the queue status you are looking for. Using this table, you can determine
the number of intervening jobs for you particular job and also the State or
every job in the queue.

The one thing we did remove was an indication or how the queue, itself, is
managed. Like, is the queue a fifo, shortest job first etc. Is this what you
are asking for? Recall that is would be a r/o object. We could probably add
this back to the General table if necessary. It would likely be "hardcoded" to
fifo for many printers.

Harrish, if you have questions about the latest Job MIB draft, please feel free
to post them or e-mail me, Ron or Tom directly if we can be of assistance. We
are into the home stretch on this MIB.

Harry Lewis - IBM Printing Systems

---

From: Tom Hastings <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 19 May 1997 14:51:34 PDT

There are some more "queue status objects":

1. The General table has the jmGeneralNumberOfActiveJobs object which 
indicates the number of jobs that are in any state but canceled or completed.

2. The General table has the jmGeneralJobSetName object which could be used
for the queue name in a server that has multiple queues, one per job set.

So any of the General group/table objects are "queue related" in a system
that implements queues.

I plan to have an updated version of the Job Monitoring MIB for comments
later this week with the final agreements reached last week.

Tom

---

From: JK Martin <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 19 May 1997 18:17:40 -0400 (EDT)

Tom,

> later this week with the final agreements reached last week.

Thanks in advance for quickly updating the draft.

Would it be possible for you to first post a summary of the changes
agreed upon at last week's JMP meeting in San Diego.  Without such
a summary, reviewing the draft will be a lot harder.

	...jay

---

From: Tom Hastings <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 19 May 1997 15:48:47 PDT

Ok, I'll first post the changes that we agreed to.  That will be good to 
make sure we agree on what we agreed to.

Also Harry's minutes should be coming soon.

Tom