Re: PMP> Can an RFC 1759 implementation use the alert(18) ty
Harry Lewis <harryl@us.ibm.com> Thu, 11 June 1998 21:53 UTC
Delivery-Date: Thu, 11 Jun 1998 17:53:03 -0400
Return-Path: pmp-owner@pwg.org
Received: from cnri.reston.va.us (ns.cnri.reston.va.us [132.151.1.1]) by ietf.org (8.8.5/8.8.7a) with ESMTP id RAA25845 for <ietf-archive@ietf.org>; Thu, 11 Jun 1998 17:53:02 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from lists.underscore.com (uscore-1.mv.com [199.125.85.30]) by cnri.reston.va.us (8.8.5/8.8.7a) with ESMTP id RAA21563 for <ietf-archive@cnri.reston.va.us>; Thu, 11 Jun 1998 17:55:26 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from localhost (daemon@localhost) by lists.underscore.com (8.7.5/8.7.3) with SMTP id RAA14144 for <ietf-archive@cnri.reston.va.us>; Thu, 11 Jun 1998 17:53:03 -0400 (EDT)
Received: by pwg.org (bulk_mailer v1.5); Thu, 11 Jun 1998 17:50:58 -0400
Received: (from daemon@localhost) by lists.underscore.com (8.7.5/8.7.3) id RAA13921 for pmp-outgoing; Thu, 11 Jun 1998 17:49:02 -0400 (EDT)
From: Harry Lewis <harryl@us.ibm.com>
To: pmp@pwg.org
Subject: Re: PMP> Can an RFC 1759 implementation use the alert(18) ty
Message-ID: <5030100021667037000002L072*@MHS>
Date: Thu, 11 Jun 1998 17:47:34 -0400
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Sender: pmp-owner@pwg.org
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by ietf.org id RAA25845
I think it should be a type-1 enum and the RFC should have been approved about 9 months ago ;-). I sense that someone may have an implementation itching to use this new feature but doesn't want to ship to a latent spec. I know the feeling! I don't think shipping a "Code 18" is as risky as shipping a pending OID. Still, if it would ease the pain, I guess we could consider the type-2 enum approach. The distinction and cuttoff (between type-1 and type-2 event codes) is somewhat arbitrary in the first place. It's just that the "alert alert" is pretty fundamental. Harry Lewis - IBM Printing Systems pmp-owner@pwg.org on 06/04/98 07:54:31 PM Please respond to pmp-owner@pwg.org To: pmp@pwg.org cc: Subject: PMP> Can an RFC 1759 implementation use the alert(18) type 1 RFC 1759 says that implementations conforming to RFC 1759 may implement type 2 and type 3 enums that are registered after 1759 has been published. In order to use the new type 2 alert code: -- Alert Group alertRemovalOfBinaryChangeEntry(1801) -- A binary change event entry has been -- removed from the alert table. This unary -- change alert table entry is added to the -- end of the alert table. an implementation has to include the new type 1 alert(18) code in the alert table and trap (which is defined in the draft Printer MIB): prtAlertSeverityLevel warningUnaryChangeEvent(4) prtAlertTrainingLevel noInterventionRequired(7) prtAlertGroup alert(18) prtAlertGroupIndex the index of the row in the alert table of the binary change event that this event has removed. prtAlertLocation unknown (-2) prtAlertCode alertRemovalOfBinaryChangeEntry(1801) prtAlertDescription <description or null string> prtAlertTime the value of sysUpTime at the time of the removal of the With hind site we should have made the PrtAlertGroupTC a type 2 enum, instead of a type 1 enum. But we didn't. Alternatively, since the alert group codes starting at 30 are type 2, why not also indicate that the alert code 18 is also type 2, so that implementations conforming to RFC 1759 can use it? Or am I just being too fussy here? Should implementators conforming to RFC 1759 feel free to implement the alert(18) type 1 code? Here is the complete text of both TCs: PrtAlertGroupTC ::= TEXTUAL-CONVENTION -- This value is a type 1 enumeration for values in the range -- 1 to 29. -- Values of 30 and greater are type 2 enumerations and are -- for use in other MIBs that augment tables in the Printer Turner draft-ietf-printmib-mib-info-03.txt [Page 61] Expires July 22, 1998 INTERNET DRAFT Printer MIB October 15, 1997 -- MIB. Therefore, other MIBs may assign alert codes of 30 or -- higher to use the alert table from the Printer MIB without -- requiring revising and re-publishing this document. STATUS current DESCRIPTION "The type of sub-unit within the printer model that this alert is related. Input, output, and markers are examples of printer model groups, i.e., examples of types of sub-units. Wherever possible, these enumerations match the sub-identifier that identifies the relevant table in the printer MIB. NOTE: Alert type codes have been added for the host resources MIB storage table and device table. These additional types are for situations in which the printer's storage and device objects must generate alerts (and possibly traps for critical alerts)." SYNTAX INTEGER { other(1), hostResourcesMIBStorageTable(3), hostResourcesMIBDeviceTable(4), generalPrinter(5), cover(6), localization(7), input(8), output(9), marker(10), markerSupplies(11), markerColorant(12), mediaPath(13), channel(14), interpreter(15), consoleDisplayBuffer(16), consoleLights(17), alert(18) } PrtAlertCodeTC ::= TEXTUAL-CONVENTION -- This value is a type 2 enumeration STATUS current DESCRIPTION "The code that describes the type of alert for this entry in the table. Binary change event alerts describe states of the subunit while unary change event alerts Turner draft-ietf-printmib-mib-info-03.txt [Page 62] Expires July 22, 1998 INTERNET DRAFT Printer MIB October 15, 1997 describe a single event. The same alert code can be used for a binary change event or a unary change event, depending on implementation. Also, the same alert code can be used to indicate a critical or a non-critical (warning) alert, depending on implementation. The value of prtAlertSeverityLevel specifies binary vs. unary and critical vs. non-critical for each event for the implementation. While there are some specific codes for many subunits, the generic codes should be used for most subunit alerts. The network management station can then query the subunit specified by prtAlertGroup to determine further subunit status and other subunit information
- Re: PMP> Can an RFC 1759 implementation use the a… Harry Lewis
- Re: PMP> Can an RFC 1759 implementation use the a… Ron Bergman