Subject: JMP> JMP Oct. MIns

From: Harry Lewis <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 7 Nov 1997 18:49:55 -0500

Will be posted .../jmp/jmp-1097.txt, pdf, meanwhile see attached (same)

Minutes of the Job MIB meeting in Boulder, CO October 31, 1997

Attendees

Ron Bergman - DataProducts
Carlos Cantu - IBM
Dennis Carney - IBM
Lee Farrell - Canon
Jeff Haemer - QMS
Tom Hastings - Xerox
Scott Isaacson - Novell
David Kellerman - Northlake Software
Harry Lewis - IBM Printing Systems
Jay Martin - Underscore
Kathy Melton - IBM
Ryan Nguyen - IBM
Jerry Podojil - Genicom
Stuart Rowley - Kyocera
Yuyi Sacchi - Japan Computer Industry
Jamsie Treppendahl - IBM

1. Ron Bergman (chair) reviewed editorial comments from the 10/27
   e-mail - all were  accepted

2. A list of recommendations, submitted by Tom Hastings was reviewed.
   - Tom recommended adding Job-state-message natural language attribute
     * Accepted
   - Tom recommended adding the choice of  octet string vs.
     displaystring for jobCodedCharSet so either the IANA
     register printer MIB values can be used or the IANA MIME
     types can be used.
     *Dave Kellerman indicated choice would over unnecessarily burden
      the client application. Harry Lewis would like to stay with enums
      if only 1 is chosen. Topic to be further discussed on mailing list.
   - Tom recommended adding a natural language attribute for the job.
     *Tom will write up exact text and circulate on the mailing list.

3. Standards track vs. Informational.

There is still consternation over the fact that the Job MIB charter never
seems to have evolved under the IETF. There is a view that our efforts
should have been directed by the Management rather than Applications area,
in which case the IETF may have looked more favorably on our MIB. It is
noted that the Printer MIB may actually be more widely deployed than any
other MIB in the IETF! (many printers per one router). Part of the
discussion related to the fate of the Printer MIB, also.

Randy Turner indicated, during an earlier PMP discussion, that he would
still like to see the Printer and Job MIBs become IETF standards and feels
that Experimental is a more appropriate and fruitful route than informational.
We need to get in touch with the Area Directors of both Management and
Applications and have an IETF decision made. Two week deadline to resolve
else submit as informational RFC. Also, find out what area is guiding the
hrMIB, today, and who is heading that project.

If we go the Informational route we will register the Job MIB under the new
PWG OID as follows:

 PWG OID = ... Private.Enterprises.1699 so the Job MIB will be
           ... Private.Enterprises.1699.1. The first assignment
                                           of the job mib will be
           ... Private Enterprises.1699.1.1

4. Mapping document.

   - LPR/LPD - Header of data file contains host name. Typically does
     get passed to controller. Used to create jmJobSubmissionID format
     9. (See Ron's proposal). In peer-to-peer environments, the host
     name is typically derived from the client workstation. In
     client/server the host name is usually that of the server.

   - We decided to make jmJobSubmissionID format 9 ONLY apply to LPR

   - We added format A for Apple Talk.

   - The IPP jmJobSubmissionID format is derived directly from the
     printer URL. There are no other alternatives. By definition,
     because IPP is bidirectional, it benefits from having the
     jmJobIndex returned via IPP during submission.

   - IPDS - Harry will investigate possible mapping or changes to IPDS
     to support the Job MIB

   - NPDS - Provides jmJobSubmissionID. Does not map to jmJobIndex.

   - PJL -  Implementation note. JobID table entry is likely to be
     created when the up front PJL has been parsed in well behaved,
     coordinated job submission systems.

Harry Lewis - IBM Printing Systems

---

From: Jay Martin <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 07 Nov 1997 19:03:44 -0500

Harry Lewis wrote in his posting of the Boulder minutes on the

>            ... Private Enterprises.1699.1.1

As you know, we never got around to scheduling a meeting in Boulder
having to do with the formal process of assigning OIDs to the new
PWG enterprise tree.

This discussion really belongs on the general PWG mailing list,
the results of which can and should be used by the JMP project.

I'm a bit confused by your posted text, thinking that part of it
may be a typo.  (That is, the comments seem a bit strange.)

Notwithstanding, if I read you correctly, you're suggesting that the
Job Monitoring MIB assume the ".1" position under the PWG tree.  I
tend to agree with this approach, that a particular project would be
assigned a top-level number in the tree, assuming OID assignments are
required by the project.  (That is, just because a PWG project exists
doesn't mean that a top-level OID is assigned to it; instead, only
if the project *requires* such OIDs would the assignment be made.)

Comments for the PWG at large?

	...jay

----------------------------------------------------------------------
--  JK Martin               |  Email:   [email-masked]          --
--  Underscore, Inc.        |  Voice:   (603) 889-7000              --
--  41C Sagamore Park Road  |  Fax:     (603) 889-2699              --
--  Hudson, NH 03051-4915   |  Web:     http://www.underscore.com   --
----------------------------------------------------------------------

---

From: Jay Martin <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 07 Nov 1997 19:03:44 -0500

...jay

---

From: Ron Bergman <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 10 Nov 1997 08:06:01 -0800 (Pacific Standard Time)

The assignment of projects which require the new PWG Enterprises OID was
discussed in Boulder in the JMP meeting.  The minutes do reflect the
agreement in the meeting.  I agree with Jay that comments from the PWG in
general should be requested before this becomes official.  I request that
all comments be submitted by Friday, November 14th.

One correction, the correct PWG Enterprises number is 2699.  (I may have
given the wrong number in the meeting. :-(

	Ron Bergman
	Dataproducts Corp.

---

From: Ron Bergman <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 10 Nov 1997 08:06:01 -0800 (Pacific Standard Time)

Ron Bergman
	Dataproducts Corp.