Re: PMP> Port Mon MIB - Community Name
Harry Lewis <harryl@us.ibm.com> Tue, 05 August 2008 22:04 UTC
Return-Path: <pmp-owner@pwg.org>
X-Original-To: ietfarch-printmib-archive@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietfarch-printmib-archive@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 111963A6B20
for <ietfarch-printmib-archive@core3.amsl.com>;
Tue, 5 Aug 2008 15:04:59 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 1.475
X-Spam-Level: *
X-Spam-Status: No, score=1.475 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.053,
BAYES_50=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SARE_GIF_ATTACH=1.42]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32])
by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024)
with ESMTP id hdoxrJdBI+6G
for <ietfarch-printmib-archive@core3.amsl.com>;
Tue, 5 Aug 2008 15:04:58 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from pwg.org (pwg.org [192.146.101.49])
by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E2C913A6C59
for <printmib-archive@ietf.org>; Tue, 5 Aug 2008 15:04:37 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from pwg.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1])
by pwg.org with ESMTP id m75M57j3025065
for <printmib-archive@ietf.org>; Tue, 5 Aug 2008 18:05:09 -0400
Received: from localhost (mail@localhost)
by pwg.org (8.13.1/8.13.1/Submit) with SMTP id m75M52XQ025042
for <printmib-archive@lists.ietf.org>; Tue, 5 Aug 2008 18:05:07 -0400
Received: by pwg.org (bulk_mailer v1.13); Tue, 5 Aug 2008 18:04:36 -0400
Received: from pwg.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1])
by pwg.org with ESMTP id m75M4XYu024802
for <pmp-out@pwg.org>; Tue, 5 Aug 2008 18:04:35 -0400
Received: (from majordom@localhost)
by pwg.org (8.13.1/8.13.1/Submit) id m75M4Xdt024799
for pmp-out; Tue, 5 Aug 2008 18:04:33 -0400
In-Reply-To: <OF35EA5D96.860DC023-ON8825749C.0076A94A-8825749C.00788354@ricoh-usa.com>
To: Ron.Bergman@ricoh-usa.com
Cc: pmp@pwg.org
MIME-Version: 1.0
Subject: Re: PMP> Port Mon MIB - Community Name
X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 7.0 HF277 June 21, 2006
Message-ID: <OF2AA94D80.1DDD196E-ON8725749C.00793000-8725749C.007943C0@us.ibm.com>
From: Harry Lewis <harryl@us.ibm.com>
Date: Tue, 5 Aug 2008 16:04:27 -0600
X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on D03NM132/03/M/IBM(Release 8.0.1|February
07, 2008) at 08/05/2008 16:04:28
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="=_mixed 007943BA8725749C_="
Sender: pmp-owner@pwg.org
Ron, thanks! Harry Lewis Program Manager - Intellectual Property & Open Standards Phone: 303-924-5337 e-mail: harryl@us.ibm.com infoprint.com P Think before you print Ron.Bergman@ricoh-usa.com 08/05/2008 03:56 PM To Harry Lewis/US/InfoPrint/IDE@IBMUS cc PMP@pwg.org, Subject Re: PMP> Port Mon MIB - Community Name Harry, A more appropriate interpretation would be: "SNMP needs the Community Name" and "for MS the Community Name must be "public" for the Port Mon MIB" Harry Lewis <harryl@us.ibm.co m> To Sent by: PMP@pwg.org pmp-owner@pwg.org cc Subject 08/05/2008 02:30 PMP> Port Mon MIB - Community Name PM I accessed the archived report on Port Mon MIB interop testing which says... Discussion of use of Community Name Must be “public” for Port Monitor MIB to work MS indicated that the Community Name at the logical port level is needed to be compatible with the existing applications. Is it correct to interpret this as "MS needs the Community Name" and "the Community Name must be "public"? Regards, Harry Harry Lewis Program Manager - Intellectual Property & Open Standards Phone: 303-924-5337 e-mail: harryl@us.ibm.com infoprint.com (Embedded image moved to file: pic04734.gif) P Think before you print
- PMP> Port Mon MIB - Community Name Harry Lewis
- Re: PMP> Port Mon MIB - Community Name Ron.Bergman
- Re: PMP> Port Mon MIB - Community Name Harry Lewis