Subject: PMP> Charts for Austin PMP meeting

From: Lloyd Young <[email-masked]>
Date: 28 Mar 97 15:42:15 EST

I have uploaded a set of the charts that I will be using next week at
the Austin PMP meeting. They are located at:

   ftp://ftp.pwg.org/pub/pwg/pmp/minutes/april.pdf

I will bring hard copies of the charts to the PMP meeting (which I will
try and remember to hand out at the start of the meeting this time).

This file will be removed when the minutes are uploaded.

Regards,
Lloyd

Lloyd Young                       Lexmark International, Inc.
Senior Program Manager            Dept. C14L/Bldg. 035-3
Strategic Alliances               740 New Circle Road NW
internet: [email-masked]     Lexington, KY 40550
Phone: (606) 232-5150             Fax: (606) 232-6740

---

From: JK Martin <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 28 Mar 1997 19:55:44 -0500 (EST)

Lloyd,

Throughout your charts you have the word "DONE" attached to various items.
What does this mean?

	...jay

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

>From [email-masked] Fri Mar 28 15:42 EST 1997
To: "pmp%pwg.org" <[email-masked]>
From: Lloyd Young <[email-masked]>
Date: 28 Mar 97 15:42:15 EST
Subject: PMP> Charts for Austin PMP meeting

Regards,
Lloyd

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

---

From: Lloyd Young <[email-masked]>
Date: 29 Mar 97 10:11:39 EST

Jay,
It means that those items have been completed.
Lloyd
------------- Original message -----------------
To: lpyoung @ alfred.pfv.prtdev.lexmark.com @ SMTP
cc: pmp%pwg.org @ interlock.lexmark.com @ SMTP (bcc: Lloyd Young)
From: jkm @ underscore.com (JK Martin) @ interlock.lexmark.com @ SMTP
Date: 03/28/97 07:55:44 PM
Subject: Re: PMP> Charts for Austin PMP meeting

Lloyd,

 ...jay

---

From: JK Martin <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 29 Mar 1997 12:00:37 -0500 (EST)

Lloyd,

Well, what does "completed" mean, then?  For example, the two items
attributed to Harry Lewis (serial number and printer name) do not
have a "DONE" annotation...but there is no outstanding work to be
performed on those items, right?  (That is, appropriate text has
been posted to the list and apparently accepted by the group a couple
of weeks ago.)

	...jay

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

>From [email-masked] Sat Mar 29 10:14 EST 1997
To: "jkm%underscore.com" <[email-masked]>
Cc: "pmp%pwg.org" <[email-masked]>
From: Lloyd Young <[email-masked]>
Date: 29 Mar 97 10:11:39 EST
Subject: Re: PMP> Charts for Austin PMP meeting

Jay,
------------- Original message -----------------
To: lpyoung @ alfred.pfv.prtdev.lexmark.com @ SMTP
cc: pmp%pwg.org @ interlock.lexmark.com @ SMTP (bcc: Lloyd Young)
From: jkm @ underscore.com (JK Martin) @ interlock.lexmark.com @ SMTP
Date: 03/28/97 07:55:44 PM
Subject: Re: PMP> Charts for Austin PMP meeting

Lloyd,

 ...jay

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

---

From: Lloyd Young <[email-masked]>
Date: 29 Mar 97 12:36:23 EST

Jay,
I am going to have to go to my thesaurus to find another synonym
for "Done". -) We could keep this up for days. -) 

Seriously, you are correct there is no outstanding work to be done on
the text of these objects. The charts you are referring to are not
regarding whether something needs to be done on the object itself but 
whether or not the justification for a particular change has been 
written. The justification is required by the IETF for all changes 
before progressing a MIB from Proposed Standard to Draft Standard. 
"Done" means that the justification has been written.

Lloyd Young

--------------- Original message ----------------
To: lpyoung @ alfred.pfv.prtdev.lexmark.com @ SMTP
cc: pmp%pwg.org @ interlock.lexmark.com @ SMTP (bcc: Lloyd Young)
From: jkm @ underscore.com (JK Martin) @ interlock.lexmark.com @ SMTP
Date: 03/29/97 12:00:37 PM
Subject: Re: PMP> Charts for Austin PMP meeting

Lloyd,

 ...jay

---

From: JK Martin <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 30 Mar 1997 15:52:22 -0500 (EST)

Lloyd,

> "Done" means that the justification has been written.

Ah, I see now.  Being the "sponsor" for the new "prtGeneralPrinterName"
object (even though Harry is listed on your chart), I had already posted
the justification for the new object.

This object was discussed in rabid detail during the Portland meeting
last July, as I recall.  The original message describing the problem
for which this object was designed is attached to this message.  If
the attached text is not sufficient for a "justification", then let
me know and I'll be more than happy to quickly craft some other text.

	...jay

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

>From underscore.com!jkm Wed Jul  3 11:02:35 1996
Date: Wed, 3 Jul 96 10:52 EDT
From: [email-masked] (JK Martin)
To: [email-masked]
Subject: How to discriminate between multiple printers?

This issue has probably arisen before (I hope), so perhaps someone
can give me some pointers or copies of relevant email messages.

The question is:  How can a mgmt app distinguish between multiple
printers represented by multiple instances of RFC1759 in the Host
Resources MIB?

What I'm looking for is sort of "administrative name" that would allow
an SNMP application to target a specific instance of the printer in
the HR MIB for a given host.

A similar data element is present in MIB-II (sysName), where the MIB
guidelines state that its value should be the "fully qualified network
name" assigned to the host.  That seems ok, but what if one or more
printers registered in the hrDeviceTable is not physically attached
to the host, but rather exists as its own network entity (with or
without embedded SNMP support)?

For "typical" implementations of a network printer with RFC1759 support,
we (Underscore) expect the manufacturer to have one and only one entry
in the hrDeviceTable with a device type of "printer"; the index value
for the first such entry found in the table is then used in all SNMP
references to the printer.

However, as we all know, the HR MIB was designed to support multiple
instances of printers.  While such support is probably a bit rare
right now, I'll bet that Jay Cummings' efforts with NDPS environment
does exactly that (right, Jay?).

Obviously our "single entry only" approach in resolving the target printer
device index will fail in an environment where multiple printers are
registered in the HR MIB.

But how can an SNMP app truly distinguish a target printer from an
administrative point of view (ie, a unique instance name)?

Any thoughts/ideas are greatly appreciated.  If we are unable to solve
this problem, then our SENSE software demo will not be able to support
more than one printer in the NDPS environment at the bake-off.

And that's only the tip of the iceberg...

	...jay

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