Subject: Re: JMP> Output Bin Problems [Resolution to Issue 73 and 74]

From: Tom Hastings <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 8 May 1997 16:33:38 PDT

At 11:13 05/07/97 PDT, Harry Lewis wrote:
>Tom, ... why can't an implementation that does not have the job mib just say
>"unknown" for the output bin.

Good simplifing suggestion.  I agree.

I think using unknown is good enough for an agent that isn't implementing
the printer MIB.  Such an agent is unlikely to be instrumenting a printer,
if it isn't implementing the Printer MIB (configuration 2).  So for
configuration 2, the agent is unlikely to know which output bin(s) the
job wound up in and would plug-in unknown(-2).

So we don't need to add outputBinNumber as a new attribute (Issue 73).

Also I suggest that we don't collapse outputBinIndex(34) and outputBinName(35)
into a single attribute that is either integer or octet string (or both)
which resolved Issue 74).

Finally, I agree that for the rare case of a job going into multiple output
bins, the monitoring program can just say multi(-1), which is a specific
form of "other(1)".

>Wouldn't this, indeed, be the case?
>
>Harry Lewis - IBM Printing Systems
>
>
>------- Forwarded by Harry Lewis/Boulder/IBM on 05/07/97 12:07 PM --------
>
>        [email-masked]
>        05/07/97 04:33 AM
>Please respond to [email-masked] @ internet
>
>
>To: Harry Lewis/Boulder/IBM@IBMUS
>cc: [email-masked] @ internet
>Subject: Re: JMP> Output Bin Problems
>
>At 17:07 05/01/97 PDT, Harry Lewis wrote:
>>Classification:
>>
>>Tom, a couple comments related to Output Bin and the Job MIB using draft v.81.
>>
>> 1. Pg. 35 jobStateAssociatedValue is INTEGER. The Associated Attribute for
>>state COMPLETED cannot be outputBinName, as you have specified. I had
specified
>>outputBinIndex, not Name.
>
>I agree I created a problem.  We can't fit an OctetString into 32-bits.
>
>But changing the jobStateAssociatedValue to use outputBinIndex
>brings up another issue, which I'm calling issue 73:
>
>Issue 73 - If outputBinIndex is made mandatory, because the AssociatedValue
>object and attribute require it, but an implementation doesn't have the
>Printer MIB, the agent has to put 0 as the value.  Should we add one more
>attribute: outputBinNumber, which is just a number, not an index into the
>Printer MIB?  If we do, which should be mandatory?  Just one more reason to
>get rid of the AssociatedValue object and attribute, which is forcing us to
>pick a particular outputBin implementation and make it mandatory.  If we got
>rid of the AssociatedValue object/attribute, we could forget about making
>any of the 3 outputBinName, outputBinNumber, or outputBinIndex attribute
>mandatory.
>
>If we get rid of the AssociatedValue object/attribute, then we don't
>need to add the outputBinNumber attribute either, since an implementation
>can just put in the ASCII digits for the bin number into the outputBinName
>attribute.
>
>
>Harry Lewis - IBM Printing Systems
>
>