Subject: JMP> Analysis paper on jmJobStateTable vs. jmAttributeTable Issues

From: Tom Hastings <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 15 May 1997 22:03:04 PDT

I gave the wrong file name to the analysis paper.  I've also added a .txt
form:

ftp://ftp.pwg.org/pub/pwg/jmp/contributions/
-rw-r--r--   1 pwg      pwg        39936 May 15 09:37 sepstate.doc
-rw-r--r--   1 pwg      pwg        43087 May 15 09:38 sepstate.pdf
-rw-r--r--   1 pwg      pwg        26237 May 16 05:01 sepstate.txt

Tom

>Return-Path: <[email-masked]>
>X-Sender: hastings@zazen (Unverified)
>Date: Thu, 15 May 1997 02:46:34 PDT
>To: [email-masked]
>From: Tom Hastings <[email-masked]>
>Subject: JMP> Analysis paper on jmJobStateTable vs. jmAttributeTable Issues
>Sender: [email-masked]
>
>I've posted an 8-page analysis of the utlization of the jmJobStateTable
>and the jmAttributeTable in:
>
>ftp://ftp.pwg.org/pub/pwg/jmp/contributions/
>-rw-r--r--   1 pwg      pwg        34304 May  9 09:35 attr-tab.doc
>-rw-r--r--   1 pwg      pwg        48490 May  9 09:36 attr-tab.pdf
>
>in order to attempt to resolve the biggest issues remaining in the
>Job Monitorng MIB regarding the redundance between the jmJobStateTable and
>the jmAttributeTable and whether we could get rid of the jmJobStateTable and
>use just the jmAttributeTable or not.  
>
>Harry, Ron, and I discussed the issue over lunch today. Then I wrote this
>paper to capture the discussion, but they have not had a chance to review
>the paper.  If there are mistakes in the paper, they
>are mine.  Please review the paper to see if my understanding of SNMP
>Get and Get Next is correct when used with tables.
>
>Please send comments on this paper today, Thursday, 5/15, so that we
>may consider them during our JMP meeting, tommorrow, Friday, 5/16.
>
>One way to send comments is to use MS-WORD, turn on revision marks,
>and may comments directly in the .doc file.  If the comments are 
>sparse, an e-mail will do.  The .pdf file has line numbers, so that you
>can refer to specific lines in an e-mail mesage, perhaps even cutting
>and pasting the relevant paragraph.
>
>
>The conclusions in the paper are:
>
>The jmJobStateTable is very useful because its lowest order index is
>jmJobIndex, so that any number of selected objects can be obtained using
>multiple Get Next operations in a single PDU for the *next* job, skipping
>over jobs that have been removed from the table.  A subsequent PDU can
>contain multiple Get operations for any attributes desired using the
>returned jmJobIndex value. 
>
>If the mandatory attributes are all put into the jmJobStateTable as objects,
>and not in the jmAttributeTable as attributes, it is clear by SNMP rules
>that all of the mandatory objects shall be instantiated at the same time
>when the new job row is put into the jmJobStateTable.  Also the persistence
>time is clearly separated by which table the information is contained.
>
>The jmAttributeTable only contains conditionally mandatory attributes, no
>mandatory attributes, so that the jmAttributeTable itself can be
>conditionally mandatory, thereby allowing a very small implementation to
>only implement the jmJobStateTable and not the jmAttributeTable.
>
>
>