Subject: Re: Re[2]: PMP> How to Resolve the Traps Compatibility Issue

From: JK Martin <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 1 May 1997 11:13:55 -0400 (EDT)

Bill,

Sorry, but I sort of expected that folks could read between the lines
and assume (as I did) that Harry or someone would post specific instructions
for such a test.  Then folks would do the tests and post the results.

Yeah, I know the old adage about "assume"...  ;-)

By the way, Bill, are you "for" or "against" Harry's idea?  The tone
of your message makes me think you're not real hot about this idea.

	...jay

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

>From [email-masked] Thu May  1 09:54 EDT 1997
Date: Thu, 1 May 1997 09:57:47 -0400
From: [email-masked] (Bill Wagner)
Subject: Re[2]: PMP> How to Resolve the Traps Compatibility Issue
To: [email-masked]
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

     Posts their results?  Of what?  Perhaps I missed it, but unless it is 
     clearly stated what is being tested under what conditions, it is 
     unclear that 'results' will mean anything consistent.
     
     Bill Wagner

______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________
Subject: Re: PMP> How to Resolve the Traps Compatibility Issue
Author:  JK Martin <[email-masked]> at Internet
Date:    4/30/97 1:53 PM

Ron Bergman has proposed a good plan for resolving this annoying issue.

> I propose that all participants of the interoperability test plus 
> anyone else who is implementing the Printer MIB submit a response to
> the above.  This data can be reviewed in a teleconference or we could
> allocate an hour in the San Diego meeting.

Let's try *real hard* to resolve this via the PMP mailing list.  If
everyone posts their results (to the mailing list) by a particular
cut-off date, then we'll all have access to that data as it arrives.

Once the data has been reviewed, perhaps then (and only then) we can
put out a call for a telecon...but only if folks really think it's
necessary.

At the very least, I hope we can do whatever we can *before* San Diego
so that we don't spend precious time during those meetings on this
issue.  This issue should be resolvable across the wire.

If for some reason the group decides to spend precious meeting time in
San Diego on this topic, then would it be possible to MANDATE that the
issue be fully resolved at that meeting (and not brought up again some
two months down the road)?

        ...jay

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

---

From: Harry Lewis <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 1 May 1997 12:08:43 -0400

Classification:

For a limited time, I am willing to perform the following service to help
resolve the trap issues. I will build a table showing the following information:

1. Vendor (genericized or not - PWG's choice)

2. How to set the trap host (I think this should be documented somewhere
central to PWG to help make traps useful)

3. v2 or v2 traps implemented

4. What is actually sent in the trap PDU including

  o  Enterprise - which OID is sent
  o  agent-addr - test IP only
  o  generic-trap - testing RFC1759 traps only so verify this = 6
  o  specific-trap - value sent
  o  time-stamp - verify TimeTicks are included
  o  variable-bindings - are they included, what is the format sent.

 5. Verify at least one operation that results in the printer stopping     and
see that it traps.

 6. Report what happens on the trailing edge of that event

 7. Verify cover open trap.

 8. Report what happens when cover is closed.

 I can only do this if people send (lend) me a printer and tell me how to
register. If I already have your printer in shop then I'd just need to know how
to register.

I can only offer to do this over the next 2 weeks, so, if we're gonna do it we
need to get going.

Also, it is not necessary for one location to do the test. We could use this
outline as a test plan - modify it slightly if needed - and have every one
report their own results. Either way, it shouldn't matter. I just don't want
the test to get too much more complex. Items 5-8 are somewhat arbitrary, so I
don't mind if they get changed. I just think we need to see a couple traps, see
how they are formatted, see what's happening on both edges of the critical
binary.

Harry Lewis - IBM Printing Systems

----- Forwarded by Harry Lewis/Boulder/IBM on 05/01/97 09:36 AM -----

        [email-masked]
        05/01/97 09:28 AM

To: [email-masked]@internet
cc: [email-masked]@internet
Subject: Re: Re[2]: PMP> How to Resolve the Traps Compatibility Issue

Bill,

It appears you missed my original message.  Here it is:

Date: Wed, 30 Apr 1997 07:46:45 -0700 (PDT)
From: Ron Bergman <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: PMP> How to Resolve the Traps Compatibility Issue

Harry Lewis has made an excellent suggestion on how to resolve the
issues with traps.  It is unfortunate though that it is too late to
use this suggestion to "fix" the Printer MIB, if we discover that
changes are required.  But I do believe that it will be beneficial to
follow Harry's suggestion, even though we do not intend to change
the MIB.

I do not believe that an interoperability test is needed in this
area.  We do not have to prove that traps work or that every vendor
that supports traps has implemented them as they intended.  It is
up to each vendor to verify their design.

We do need to verify that the information presented in the trap PDU
fields is consistent and is as defined in the SNMP documents.  I
agree with Harry that the SNMP RFCs are not very clear in this area
and would guess that we will find differences in the implementations.
Harry identified the three fields of a v1 trap PDU that must be
examined.

What about v2 traps?  Are there any v2 trap implementations?

The three v1 fields Harry highlighted are:

  1. ENTERPRISE - I can not find a good definition of what this field
     is to contain.  To the best of my knowledge this should be
     sysObjectId unless it is an "enterprise-specific" trap.  For the
     latter case this value is as specified by the ENTERPRISE entry
     of the trap definition.

  2. SPECIFIC-TRAP - My guess is this should be the value of
     printerAlert (i.e. 1).

  3. VARIABLE-BINDINGS - In this case what should be presented is
     clearly defined, especially in light of the recent effort on
     the "Top 25 Alert Conditions".  Harry's questions need to be
     answered.  "Is everyone sending VarBinds?  Are they mandatory?
     Do we all send the same stuff?"

Any comments?

 Ron Bergman
 Dataproducts Corp.

On Thu, 1 May 1997, Bill Wagner wrote:

> ______________________________ Reply Separator
_________________________________ > Subject: Re: PMP> How to Resolve the Traps
Compatibility Issue > Author:  JK Martin <[email-masked]> at Internet >
Date:    4/30/97 1:53 PM > > > Ron Bergman has proposed a good plan for
resolving this annoying issue. > > > I propose that all participants of the
interoperability test plus > > anyone else who is implementing the Printer MIB
submit a response to > > the above.  This data can be reviewed in a
teleconference or we could > > allocate an hour in the San Diego meeting. > >
Let's try *real hard* to resolve this via the PMP mailing list.  If > everyone
posts their results (to the mailing list) by a particular > cut-off date, then
we'll all have access to that data as it arrives. > > Once the data has been
reviewed, perhaps then (and only then) we can > put out a call for a
telecon...but only if folks really think it's > necessary. > > At the very
least, I hope we can do whatever we can *before* San Diego > so that we don't
spend precious time during those meetings on this > issue.  This issue should be
resolvable across the wire. > > If for some reason the group decides to spend
precious meeting time in > San Diego on this topic, then would it be possible to
MANDATE that the > issue be fully resolved at that meeting (and not brought up
again some > two months down the road)? > >         ...jay >

---

From: JK Martin <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 1 May 1997 12:27:15 -0400 (EDT)

Harry,

Thanks for taking the lead in this ongoing mess.

> 1. Vendor (genericized or not - PWG's choice)

For those not at the interop test, by "genericized" you mean "anonymous".

> central to PWG to help make traps useful)

Yes, this would really be helpful...but isn't such trap recipient
address configuration purely implementation-dependent?  It would be
great if all participating printer vendors published (as part of the
results) the steps needed to set such trap recipient addresses.

> 3. v2 or v2 traps implemented

We'll assume you mean that each vendor should state whether they
implement SNMP V1 traps versus SNMP V2 traps (or both).

>   o  variable-bindings - are they included, what is the format sent.

Excellent!

>  5. Verify at least one operation that results in the printer stopping and

It would probably be in our best (statistical) interests that all vendors
invoke the exact same condition.  That way we can truly compare results
in an apples-n-apples fashion.

>  6. Report what happens on the trailing edge of that event

Sorry, can you explain just a bit more here?

>  8. Report what happens when cover is closed.

Is this different in some way than your #5 step above?

And you're right, we have precious little time to pull off this ad hoc
interop test, so let's hear from all participants as quickly as possible.

	...jay

---

From: [email-masked] (Bill Wagner)
Date: Thu, 1 May 1997 13:13:40 -0400

Jay,
     
     If the idea is that the participants perform an agreed upon procedure 
     and make the results public (perhaps after Lloyd disguises who is who, 
     if necessary), it sounds good to me. It is just that I think an agreed 
     upon, consistent procedure (or some way of identifying procedural 
     variations) is necessary. The procedure should be sufficiently 
     explicit so that someone else could repeat it on the same machine and 
     (hopefully) get the same results (don't laugh... )
     
     Bill Wagner

Date:    5/1/97 11:13 AM

Bill,

        ...jay

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

     
     Bill Wagner

        ...jay

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

---

From: [email-masked] (Bill Wagner)
Date: Thu, 1 May 1997 13:22:21 -0400

Harry,

     With Jay's comments, it looks like a good outline to me. By the way, 
     could you suggest an application to check the trap as sent (other than 
     a network analyzer)?
     
     Bill Wagner

______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________
Subject: Re: Re[2]: PMP> How to Resolve the Traps Compatibility Issue
Author:  Harry Lewis <[email-masked]> at Internet
Date:    5/1/97 12:08 PM

Classification:

----- Forwarded by Harry Lewis/Boulder/IBM on 05/01/97 09:36 AM -----

        [email-masked]
        05/01/97 09:28 AM

Bill,

Any comments?

 Ron Bergman
 Dataproducts Corp.

---

From: "Chris Wellens" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 4 May 1997 18:01:44 -0700

----------
> Date: Wednesday, April 30, 1997 7:46 AM
> 
> changes are required.  

I agree with Harry's approach as well.  I am not sure why you believe it is
"too late".  We have to get this resolved one way or another.  We cannot
submit the latest draft without having a fix for this.  

> up to each vendor to verify their design.

I am not sure what you mean by this.  A generic management application
should be able to receive a trap from any printer implementing RFC 1759
(where the manufacturer decided to implement traps).   At the moment, it
appears that traps were used to lock a given printer into a given
management application, and to lock out other printers.  This is referred
to as "using SNMP to provide open, standard, proprietary solutions."   This
is exactly the kind of thing we are trying to prove that we did not do.  

Perhaps you intended to say that getting answers to Harry's questions below
is a necessary first step before considering any more interoperability
testing?