Subject: Re: PMP> Understanding RFC 1759 and the new enums (and the PMP web page)

From: JK Martin <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 19 Mar 1997 18:52:41 -0500 (EST)

Tom,

Hey, your many suggestions sound pretty good.  When may we expect
you to complete the effort needed to produce such documentation?

	...jay

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

>From [email-masked] Wed Mar 19 18:48 EST 1997
X-Sender: hastings@zazen
Mime-Version: 1.0
Date: Wed, 19 Mar 1997 15:44:46 PST
To: Don Wright <[email-masked]>
From: Tom Hastings <[email-masked]>
Subject: PMP> Understanding RFC 1759 and the new enums (and the PMP web page)
Cc: peter smartt <[email-masked]>,
        "hastings%cp10.es.xeros.com" <[email-masked]>,
        "jgyllens%hpdmd48.boi.hp.com" <[email-masked]>,
        "rlsmith%nb.ppd.ti.com" <[email-masked]>,
        "szilles%mv.us.adobe.com" <[email-masked]>,
        "david%munnari.OZ.AU" <[email-masked]>,
        "djenkins%hbmuk.com" <[email-masked]>,
        "psmartt%ozemail.com.au" <[email-masked]>,
        "pmp%pwg.org" <[email-masked]>

There is a vital piece of information that implementors need to know
about the relationship between RFC 1759 and the enums that the PWG
has agreed to since RFC 1759.

These additional enums are intended to be used by implementations conforming
to RFC 1759.  So if you want to know what additional type 2 enums have
been agreed to by the PWG, you need to access the latest version of
the Printer MIB draft that is progressing towards a draft standard.

The latest is about to become an Internet-Draft, but the current committee
draft is available in:

  ftp://ftp.pwg.org/pub/pwg/pmp/drafts/pmib_031897.txt

The textual conventions in the front of this MIB contain all of the
additional enums that an implementation conforming to RFC 1759 can
use and still be conforming to RFC 1759.

Many implementors do NOT realize this and stick only with the enums
that are in RFC 1759.  

I strongly urge the PMP web page be expanded to explain that the
enums expressed as textual conventions in the current draft may be
used when implementing a device that conforms to RFC 1759 so that
implementors, such as Peter Smartt, are not mis-lead into only looking
at RFC 1759 when they implement the Printer MIB.

So the PMP web page should contain a pointer to RFC 1759 and to the
latest draft. And it should explain that implementations conforming to
RFC 1759 may use the textual conventsions in the latest draft.

Everybody agree on this?

Thanks,
Tom

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

---

From: Tom Hastings <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 20 Mar 1997 13:39:41 PST

Gail,

Great suggestion!  Please add this info about how and where to get the
new enums for use with RFC 1759 conforming implementations to your FAQ.

I assume that your FAQ will be put up on the PMP web page?

Thanks,
Tom

At 15:55 03/19/97 PST, Gail wrote:
>Tom,
>
>I have been working on a FAQ for PMP and it currently contains a pointer to the
>RFC1759 and the latest draft.  I could easily add this piece of information at
>in the same place or as separate question.
>
>Gail
>
>

---

From: JK Martin <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 20 Mar 1997 16:55:17 -0500 (EST)

Gail,

Do you know "how and where to get the new enums for use with RFC 1759"
as Tom requested?  If not, then please ask Tom to provide you with the
complete text necessary for inclusion in the sorely needed FAQ document.
(And THANKS for volunteering to do this difficult ongoing effort!)

Tom,

Please understand that Gail has volunteered to manage the creation of
the FAQ...but that she is not necessarily responsible for providing
any and all content.  Please do YOUR JOB in providing her with this
information.  Thanks for your consideration.

	...jay

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

>From [email-masked] Thu Mar 20 16:49 EST 1997
Date: Thu, 20 Mar 1997 13:39:41 PST
To: "Gail Songer" <[email-masked]>
From: Tom Hastings <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: PMP> Understanding RFC 1759 and the new enums (and the PMP
  web page)
Cc: [email-masked]

Gail,

Thanks,
Tom

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

---

From: Tom Hastings <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 21 Mar 1997 17:05:35 PST

At 13:49 03/20/97 PST, Gail Songer wrote:
>Tom,
>
>I am currently having Eugene look at it to make sure that I have not make any
>gross mistakes, and I should be sending it off today. I assume that it should
>not be too long before it gets put on the PWG web page.
>
>What do you mean by "how and where to get the new enums"?  do you  mean the
>links to the current draft or do you want something more specific?  I have
>attached the current version of the faq.  Would you let me know if it is
>sufficient?
>
>Thanks!
>Gail
>

Gail,

I have a few comments on your FAQ about what the changes are.

1. Should we add all the new objects to the list?  If so, then add:
the administratively assigned printer name object, start-up and banner page
control objects, manual feed and input tray switching objects to the list.

2. Provide some way for a user to access the current draft of the
new Printer MIB.  Either the latest Internet-draft, or the latest
internal PWG draft.  I'm not sure which is the best source to get
the latest approved enums.  But maybe it is safer to refer to the
latest Internet-Draft.  But I'm not sure how to give such a pointer.

So either a URL or a file-name.  I'm open to suggestions and haven't
proposed a specific method below.  But I think a separate question
and answer would be good: How do I get the latest draft?  Or more simply 
just put in a link into the description.

3. Actually, it isn't that the PWG agreed that additional enums could
be used with RFC 1759, RFC 1759 says that the PWG can agree to additional
enums.

4. We need to say something that all the enums are now defined as
textual conventions, for ease of importing into an implementation.
The textual conventions are what is to be found in the Internet-Draft.

Thanks so much for doing this FAQ.

Tom

Here is your current text followed by my suggestions incorporated into the text.

<BR>
</FONT> 
<BR>
<A NAME="Q3"> <B>3) What kind of changes are going into the new version?
</B></A> <BR><BR> <FONT SIZE=2> 
Besides some general cleanup and expanded object definitions, the newest
version includes a couple of new variables.  They includes a printer serial
number, and a count of the number of critical errors that have been put in
the alert table.  
<BR><BR>
The new version also includes additional possible values for many of the
enumerations found within the specification.  The members of PMP have agreed
that current implementations may use the textual conventions found in the
current draft and still be compliant to RFC1759.  So if you want to describe
the fuser in the supply table, you can use the enumeration for fuser in
prtMarkerSuppliesType which has been included in the latest draft but was
not in RFC1759, and still be compliant with RFC1759. 

Here is my suggested text for your FAQ:

<BR>
</FONT> 
<BR>
<A NAME="Q3"> <B>3) What kind of changes are going into the new version?
</B></A> <BR><BR> <FONT SIZE=2> 
Besides some general cleanup and expanded object definitions, the newest
version includes a couple of new variables.  They include a printer serial
number, and a count of the number of critical errors that have been put in
the alert table, the administratively assigned printer name, start-up and
banner page control objects and manual feed and input tray switching objects.  
<BR><BR>
The new version also includes additional possible values for many of the
enumerations found within the specification.  RFC1759 specifies that
additional enums, called type 2 enums, may be used with RFC1759 compliant
implementations after approval by the PMP.  There are a number of additional
enums that have been approved by the PMP since RFC1759 was published.  Those
additional enums are published in the latest draft.  So if you want to
describe the fuser in the supply table, you can use the enumeration for
fuser in prtMarkerSuppliesType which has been included in the latest draft
but was not in RFC1759, and still be compliant with RFC1759. 

<BR>
</FONT> 
<BR>
<A NAME="Q3"> <B>4) How do I get the latest version?  </B></A> <BR><BR>
<FONT SIZE=2> 
Point your browser at