Subject: JMP> Editorial Comments on Job MIB Version 0.85

From: Ron Bergman <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 3 Sep 1997 09:34:19 -0700 (Pacific Daylight Time)

Tom,

Please review the following comments and indicate which you will include
and which require further discussion.  I consider all of these editorial
changes only.

1. New text on page 20, fourth paragraph:

  It is recommended that agents that are providing access to
  servers/devices that already allocate job-identifiers for jobs as
  integers use the same integer value for the jmJobIndex.  Then the jobs
  will have the same job identifier value as the jmJobIndex value, so that
  users viewing jobs by management applications using this MIB and
  applications using other protocols will see the same job identifiers for
  the same jobs.

  Change to: (The first part of the second sentence is a re-word of the
  first sentence and has no added value.)

  It is recommended that agents that are providing access to
  servers/devices that already allocate job-identifiers for jobs as
  integers use the same integer value for the jmJobIndex.  Then
  management applications using this MIB and applications using other
  protocols will see the same job identifiers for the same jobs.

2. Page 21, second to last paragraph:

   NOTE - Application detect the end of the...

  Should be:  NOTE - Applications detect the end of the...

3. New text on page 26, second paragrpah:

   NOTE - For a number of job submission protocols the server/device
   assigns an integer job identifier when accepting a job so that the
   submitting client can reference the job in subsequent protocol
   operations (For example, see IPP [ipp]).  For such implementations, it
   is recommended that the value of the job identifier and the value of
   jmJobIndex be the same, so that 

   First, this text is very similar to what is on page 20.  Second, the
   last sentence is incomplete.

4. Revision to paragraph 3.5.1, page 26.  The current text is clumsy.

   3.5.1 Text generated by the server or device

   There are a few objects and attributes generated by the server or device
   that shall be represented using the Universal Multiple-Octet Coded
   Character Set (UCS) [ISO-10646].  These objects and attributes are always
   supplied (if implemented) by the agent, not by the job submitting client:
        1. jmGeneralJobSetName object
        2. processingMessage(6) attribute
        3. physicalDevice(32) (name value) attribute

   The coded character set for representing these objects and attributes
   SHALL be UTF-8 as recommended by RFC 2130 [RFC 2130] and the "IETF
   Policy on Character Sets and Language" [char-set policy]. The
   'JmUTF8StringTC' textual convention shall be used to indicate UTF-8 text
   strings.

   NOTE - For strings in 7-bit US-ASCII, there is no impact since the UTF-8
   representation of 7-bit ASCII is identical to the US-ASCII [US-ASCII]
   encoding.

5. Change title of paragraph 3.5.2, page 26.

   3.5.2 Text generated by the job submitter 

6. Page 32, JmUTF8StringTC.  The following text is repeated from paragraph
   3.5.1, which is also referenced here.  This should be deleted.

        NOTE - The values of objects and attributes using this textual
        convention are generated by the server or the device, not by the
        job submitter.

7. Page 32-33, JmJobStringTC.  The following text is repeated from paragraph
   3.5.2.

        "To facilitate internationalization, this TC represents
        information using any coded character set registered by IANA
        that has the following properties:  (1) code positions from 0 to
        31 SHALL not be used, (2) 32 to 127 SHALL be US-ASCII [US-
        ASCII], (3) 127 SHALL be unused, and (4) the remaining code
        positions 128 to 255 SHALL represent single-byte or multi-byte
        graphic characters structured according to ISO 2022 [ISO 2022]
        or SHALL be unused.  While it is recommended that the coded
        character set be UTF-8 [UTF-8], the actual coded character set
        SHALL be indicated by the value of the jobCodedCharSet(7)
        attribute for the job.

        NOTE - The values of objects and attributes using this textual
        convention are either generated by the job submitter or
        defaulted by the server or device when the job submitter does
        not supply values."

  Change to:

       "To facilitate internationalization, this TC represents
        information using any coded character set registered by IANA
        as specified in paragraph 3.5.2.  While it is recommended that
        the coded character set be UTF-8 [UTF-8], the actual coded
        character set SHALL be indicated by the value of the
        jobCodedCharSet(7) attribute for the job."

8. Page 78, second paragraph.  Change:

        ...formats that have been reserved to agents...

   To:

        ...formats that have been reserved for agents...

9. Page 81, jmNumberOfInterveningJobs.  Change:

        "The number of jobs that are expected to complete being
        processed before this job has completed being processed
        according to the implementation's queuing algorithm if no other...

   To:

         "The number of jobs that are expected to complete processing
         before this job has completed processing according to the 
         implementation's queuing algorithm, if no other...

10. Page 1, second paragraph. (Closing quote is in the wrong position.)

     as reference material or to cite them other than as "work in 
     progress."

    Should be:

     as reference material or to cite them other than as "work in 
     progress".

	Ron Bergman
	Dataproducts Corp.

---

From: Tom Hastings <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 9 Sep 1997 17:26:02 PDT

At 09:03 09/09/97 PDT, Ron Bergman wrote:
>Tom,
>
>Very good!  Most are closed.  I only have a the following additional
>comments.
>
>
>	Ron
>
>
>On Fri, 5 Sep 1997, Tom Hastings wrote:
>
>> Ron,
>> 
>> Good suggestions.
>> 
>> Thanks,
>> Tom
>> 
>> At 09:34 09/03/97 PDT, Ron Bergman wrote:
>> >Tom,
>> >
>
>...snip...snip...
>
>
>> 
>> So how about changing it to refer back to page 20:
>> 
>>    jmJobIndex be the same (see section 3.2).
>>  
>In reading both sections again, I do not see a need for any additional
>text here at all.  The end of the previous paragraph reads:
>
>  "See section 3.2, entitled 'The Job Tables and the Oldest Active and
>   Newest Active Indexes' for the specification of how the agent shall
>   assign the jmJobIndex values."
>
>This text should be sufficient for the reference to this section.  The
>exisiting paragraph, or your revised version, is already covered in
>section 3.2.

I agree.  Even shorter.

>> Much better.  The only suggestion I have would be to change the SHALL
>> in the second to last sentence to is, since the 'JmUTF8StringTC' textual 
>> convention is UTF-8.  So the sentence is just explaining what JmUTF8StringTC
>> is.  The preceding sentence has the SHALL in it.
>> 
>> So the sentence would become:
>>  
>>   The 'JmUTF8StringTC' textual convention is used to indicate UTF-8 text
>>   strings.
>> 
>Yes, good change.
>> 
>> Better.
>> I agree.
>> Good shortening.
>> This is the only one I disagree with!  Proper English is that the
>> quote comes last.  Look in any book.  Also this is just copied from
>> the usual IETF template (which is also correct).
>> 
>We can leave as it is, since this will not appear in the final document it
>is not an issue.  (I did check an number of drafts and both forms were
>used.
>
>
>
>	Ron Bergman
>	Dataproducts Corp.
> 
>
>
>