Subject: Re[2]: JMP> jmJobState and jmJobStateReasonsTC [ISSUE: Are t

From: [email-masked] (Bill Wagner)
Date: Tue, 3 Jun 1997 10:34:56 -0400

Tom,
     
     I guess I will try again. Why do we feel obligated to make the enums 
     mandatory or conditionally mandatory? I do not think that the 
     unfortunate fact that we made one object mandatory on the printer MIB, 
     and a very particular set-only object at that, has set sufficient 
     precedent.
     
     The question of which state values are mandatory and which are 
     conditionally mandatory has been argued to death. One of the reasons 
     is, I believe, that the reason/justification for making any state 
     mandatory is not understood. 
     
     What is the reason for making state values mandatory? Or conditionally 
     mandatory?

     What does it mean to have state mandatory, or conditioanlly mandatory? 
        1. Does it mean that every job must go through every mandatory 
     state? 
        2. Does it mean that the hardware be capable of putting a job in 
     each the "mandatory" state?  
        3. Does it mean that, if a job is in a "mandatory" state, the 
     equipment must report it?
     
     Calling on the IETF definitions for mandatory and conditioanlly 
     mandatory doe not answer these questions.
     
     Bill Wagner, Osicom/DPI

______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________
Subject: Re: JMP> jmJobState and jmJobStateReasonsTC [ISSUE: Are ther
Author:  Tom Hastings <[email-masked]> at Internet
Date:    6/2/97 6:09 PM

At 07:39 05/28/97 PDT, Ron Bergman wrote:

snip..

> 
>RB> Tom, I still have a hard time justifying that enums for an object
>RB> are "mandatory" or "conditionally-mandatory".  It made some sense
>RB> for the Attribute Table but for objects in the Job State Table this
>RB> generating significant confusion.  I still prefer that the *object*
>RB> jmJobState be "mandatory" and the enums for the object are implied
>RB> to be "conditionally mandatory".

So some say make all the job state enums mandatory and some say make
them all conditionally mandatory.

As I've tried to reason before, the 'completed' state is one of the
most important states to make mandatory, not conditionally mandatory.

Most printers today do not have a 'completed' state, at least not one
that lasts for a human perceptable time.  So if JMP doesn't make the
'completed' state mandatory, no one need implement it.

Doesn't that make sense to include 'completed' in the conformance 
ASN.1 at the back, like we did for Reset in the Printer MIB?

Tom

---

From: JK Martin <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 3 Jun 1997 11:11:32 -0400 (EDT)

After thinking about this long and hard, I agree with Bill (and others)
that mandating the use of enum values seems pretty strange.  Either the
conforming agent/entity supports those enums or they don't.  If they do,
then the agent/entity supplies them as values at the appropriate time.

	...jay

----- Begin Included Message -----

>From [email-masked] Tue Jun  3 10:31 EDT 1997
Date: Tue, 3 Jun 1997 10:34:56 -0400
From: [email-masked] (Bill Wagner)
Subject: Re[2]: JMP> jmJobState and jmJobStateReasonsTC [ISSUE: Are t
To: [email-masked]
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

     Tom,

     

     
     Bill Wagner, Osicom/DPI

snip..

Tom

----- End Included Message -----