Subject: RE: PMP> Draft MIB comments [let's extend as requested]

From: "McDonald, Ira" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 18 Jan 2005 11:47:15 -0800

Hi Tom, Jerry, Ron, and others,

I'm all wet here!

Ron and I just spoke.  Without actual overlap with
Printer MIB v2 (which often does not define a keyword
for the service URL for protocol types), we could rename
'ppmPortLprQueueName' to 'ppmPortServiceNameOrURL'
(then recommend using full URL, when available, for
example the 'lpr:' URL scheme registered four years
ago with IANA supports queue name already).  This
would align better with the LDAP Printer Schema (RFC
3712) and SLP Printer Schema (source of 'lpr:' scheme).

Then we could add a new general-purpose boolean named
'ppmPortAlternateSourcePortsEnabled' (default to 'false')
that handles LPR, FTP, SMTP, and many other protocols
that normally restrict the source port range.

Sorry for my earlier unwise comments.

And darn it - I just labelled this document 'Stable'.
Oops.

Cheers,
- Ira

Ira McDonald (Musician / Software Architect)
Blue Roof Music / High North Inc
PO Box 221  Grand Marais, MI  49839
phone: +1-906-494-2434
email: [email-masked]

-----Original Message-----
From: Haapanen, Tom [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Tuesday, January 18, 2005 1:03 PM
To: 'McDonald, Ira'; [email-masked]
Cc: 'Bergman, Ron'
Subject: RE: PMP> Draft MIB comments

Ira,

I'm happy to work within those deadlines.  And I am planning to attend the
April meeting as well.  I do regret not finding out about the initiative
earlier, but it's unfortunately too late to do anything about that now. 

If I understand correctly, the goal of the port MIB is to enable automatic
printer installation -- something both Microsoft and we want to be able to
accomplish.  I also understand that duplication with the printer MIB is
undesirable.  And in that case ...

... would it not make sense to remove the LPR queue name from the port MIB?

... and will the vendors be willing to update their printer MIB support at
the same time as they implement the port MIB?  If they will not be, that
will limit the usefulness of the port MIB.

Tom

-----Original Message-----
From: McDonald, Ira [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Tuesday, 18 January 2005 12:45
To: 'Haapanen, Tom'; McDonald, Ira; [email-masked]
Cc: 'Bergman, Ron'
Subject: RE: PMP> Draft MIB comments

Hi Tom,

Of course Equitrac's input merits consideration!!!

Unfortunately I guess you missed the previous drafts and discussion since
last November.  Microsoft has asked to bring this MIB to content closure
within the next month at the latest, in order to move it into their Longhorn
printing planning cycle.

By PWG Process v2.0 rules, we must bring a 'last call'
to closure during a PWG face-to-face (next one in April).
Therefore, we have a pretty hard target of entering 'last call' no later
than 1 March 2005 (to allow an extra long final review period for
implementors).

If more info is needed for LPR in 'prtChannelInformation', then the
appropriate fix is to update 'PrtChannelTypeTC'
in the IANA registry with the new keywords and info, not to expand the
'competition' between the Port MIB and Printer MIB v2.

Updating the IANA registry is simple and straightforward (the PWG is the
responsible authority for revisions).

I personally regret the LPR-specific info in the Port MIB, but it was
proposed originally and requested by Microsoft in their prototype last
November.

I personally consider that adding more protocol-specific info to the Port
MIB is a very bad idea - it will lead to inconsistent info with Printer MIB
v2 - and it will lead to confusion in the printing industry, by implying
that it is less important for vendors to correctly and promply upgrade to
Printer MIB v2 (which has other quite important objects added).

Cheers,
- Ira

Ira McDonald (Musician / Software Architect) Blue Roof Music / High North
Inc PO Box 221  Grand Marais, MI  49839
phone: +1-906-494-2434
email: [email-masked]