Subject: Re: PMP> Traps - new info

From: "Caruso,Angelo" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 22 Apr 1997 08:14:20 PDT

Since SNMP currently provides no standard mechanism by which trap 
 recipients can be registered with agents, I fail to see how the PWG 
 can claim that interoperability of traps have been demonstrated. If 
 certain vendors have demonstrated they can send/receive Printer MIB 
 traps using a proprietary registration mechanism, congratulations, 
 you've validated your implementation. And, I think that is enough 
 justification for keeping the trap in the MIB spec.

Speaking for the Xerox products which have made appearances at Printer 
 MIB interop testing, they DO NOT emit traps. The reason is simple, 
 there is no standard mechanism for registering trap recipients. Any 
 Xerox proprietary mechanism would be useful only with Xerox management 
 apps. Current Xerox management apps for these printers rely on polling 
 rather than traps.

I do not believe that failure of the SNMP community to specify a 
 standard mechanism for registering trap recipients should be deemed a 
 condemnation of the Printer MIB trap spec. I think we should keep the 
 trap in anticipation of a forthcoming standard registration mechanism. 
 And, we should check any currently proposed mechanisms to verify that 
 the current Printer MIB trap specification is compatible with those 
 proposed registration mechanisms.

Thanks,
Angelo

---

From: Randy Turner <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 22 Apr 1997 10:44:14 -0700

>  justification for keeping the trap in the MIB spec.

The administrative framework required for registration of traps is
completely orthogonal
to the interoperability of trap generation and reception. What
interoperability with
regards to traps means is that a specific well-defined event has occured
and a
management station has successfully received a trap reflecting the
event. The main
sticking point with regards to interoperability within the printer MIB
is how well
we have defined what events cause traps to be generated and is there any

ambiguity in our definition that would cause implementations to
interpret the
definition differently.

I'm not saying that we don't need a standard for registration, I think
we do.
Its just that from an interoperability standpoint, its irrelevant to the

testing for the printer MIB.