Subject: Re: PMP> Traps

From: Harry Lewis <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 7 Apr 1997 11:24:35 -0400

Classification:
Prologue:
Epilogue: Harry Lewis - IBM Printing Systems

While I have solicited for a standard way to register for traps and mentioned
that this would aid in use of RFC1759 traps, I do not subscribe to the concept
that lack of this will or should effect progression of the printer MIB in any
way. Lack of a standard method for registering for traps is an overall SNMP
concern, so let's take SNMP back to the beginning if we're going to think that
way. RFC1759 just defined traps, we did not invent them.

I had a modem failure while away, so it may appear that I'm responding to some
old mail (I am). Perhaps this issue has already been resolved.

---- Forwarded by Harry Lewis/Boulder/IBM on 04/07/97 09:07 AM -----

> We will need to come up with a solution in order to advance to
> DRAFT standard.  The solution could be a standard method of
> registering traps for printers, or we could delete the
> discussion of traps entirely.  Whether traps are mandatory or
> optional, we are still faced with the requirement of having two
> interoperable (consistently implemented) implementations of the
> feature.  Right now, we don't have that.

Harry Lewis