Subject: Re: JMP> Straw vote request: interest in splitting the Job

From: [email-masked] (Bill Wagner)
Date: Fri, 9 May 1997 15:46:42 -0400

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?

     No.
     
     Bill Wagner, DPI/Osicom

---

From: Harry Lewis <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 12 May 1997 12:04:21 -0400

NO.  I don't support separating the MIBs into accounting and monitoring - I
think one rather simple mib should be able to address both. This is why we
included a set of 4 tables - one for General information about the other tables
in the MIB, one for Job ID, one for Job State (progress, monitoring) and one
for Job Attributes (describing resources used by the job).

Nor do I agree with the following statement (not sure who wrote this - my
mailer did not find any name attached)

>If you buy the categorization 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).

I don't "buy" that only 4 of 78 are for accounting only. We obviously have some
major philosophical differences regarding the use of the Job MIB which need to
be address in San Diego.

Harry Lewis - IBM Printing Systems

---

From: Tom Hastings <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 12 May 1997 16:25:43 PDT

At 09:04 05/12/97 PDT, Harry Lewis wrote:

Snip..

>mailer did not find any name attached)

Harry,

I wrote that.  See the file attr-tab.doc .pdf that I posted in the
/pub/pwg/jmp/contributions sub-directory last Friday.

>major philosophical differences regarding the use of the Job MIB which need to

I'd be interested in which additional attributes
you think are for accounting *only*, i.e. are not also useful for job
monitoring?  Take a look at the attr-tab.doc .pdf file.

Should we put review of the attr-tab.doc .pdf file on the agenda for
San Diego?