Subject: RE: PMP> Comments on Printer Port Monitor MIB 1.0 working draft d ated March 21, 2005

From: "McDonald, Ira" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 26 Mar 2005 08:12:01 -0800

Hi Dennis,
 
The Introduction and Background were recently added, for boilerplate
reasons.
They are not authoritative and in fact have not been reviewed.
 
Microsoft is NOT using the Printer MIB for status at all in Longhorn (per
Mike
Fenelon).  The 'hrDeviceTable' and 'hrPrinterTable' in the Host Resources
MIB 
are the only status that will be displayed by Longhorn for printer ports.
 
If a vendor implements a single 'hrDeviceIndex' value for all ports (i.e.,
channels) 
on the "same" printer, then if ANY port is 'down' in 'hrDeviceStatus' they
will ALL 
be shown 'down' in the MS tools.  That's not acceptable behaviour.
 
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: Dennis Carney [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Friday, March 25, 2005 2:43 PM
To: [email-masked]
Cc: Adams, Charles A; McDonald, Ira; 'Bergman, Ron';
[email-masked]
Subject: RE: PMP> Comments on Printer Port Monitor MIB 1.0 working draft d
ated March 21, 2005

Ira, My reading of the "Introduction" and the "Background" of the document
seems to make it clear that the main MS model *IS* an embedded printer.

Mike Fenelon, is it really true that your port monitor makes it such that
each port *has to* have a different ppmPortHrDeviceIndex? If a network
printer implemented this MIB and advertised both an LPR and a RAW port,
would you really have a problem if both ports had a ppmPortHrDeviceIndex of
1?

Dennis
Inactive hide details for "McDonald, Ira" '
src="cid:10__=[email-masked]" width=16>"McDonald,
Ira" <[email-masked]>

	"McDonald, Ira" <[email-masked]> 
Sent by: [email-masked] 

	03/25/2005 09:14 AM

To

"'Bergman, Ron'" <[email-masked]>, "McDonald, Ira"
<[email-masked]>, "Adams, Charles A"
<[email-masked]>, [email-masked]	

cc

Subject

RE: PMP> Comments on Printer Port Monitor MIB 1.0 working draft d ated March
21, 2005	

Hi Ron,

Going all the way back to the first Microsoft draft and ever since,
it's clear that the MS "port" entry has to have a separate device
index for each port, because the 'hr...' status objects have to be
separate for EACH port.  

Remember the main MS model is NOT an embedded printer.  It's either 
an external network adaptor or a spooler.  In both of these cases, 
only ONE protocol is being exposed fore each "port".

This isn't a new restriction.

In the case of an external network adaptor, each "port" is literally
a different direct-connect printer.

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: Bergman, Ron [ mailto:[email-masked]
<mailto:[email-masked]> ]
Sent: Thursday, March 24, 2005 3:03 PM
To: McDonald, Ira; Adams, Charles A; [email-masked]
Subject: RE: PMP> Comments on Printer Port Monitor MIB 1.0 working draft
dated March 21, 2005

Ira,

Regarding your comment:

2. ppmPortHrDeviceIndex - This seems to imply an hrDeviceTable entry is
needed for each port on the system. Is this the expected behavior? 
Or is this just the hrDeviceIndex of the printer? 
Or is the the hrDeviceIndex for the network card?

<ira>  For the Microsoft tool (TCPMon), EACH port (channel) has to
have a separate 'hrDeviceIndex' - this is different than typical
Printer MIB implementations, but it's a Microsoft tool limitation.
Note that Microsoft TCPMon _only_ supports LPR and Raw ports (no
other protocol is supported or contemplated according to co-editor
Mike Fenelon from the Microsoft Longhorn printing team), so this
only means two 'hrDeviceIndex' values at most (for each printer).
</ira>

I do not recall ever hearing this.  It certainly is not clear from
the MIB text (see below) that this is the case.  If this is true
then it is not really hrDeviceIndex that is indicated but is just
ppmPortIndex.

Also, for the printers I work with there will be a minimum of 10
ports reported.  If IPP is enable, there will be a minimum of 15.
The maximum number will be 192.

Ron

From the MIB:
ppmPortHrDeviceIndex OBJECT-TYPE
   SYNTAX      Integer32 (0..2147483647)
   MAX-ACCESS  read-only
   STATUS      current
   DESCRIPTION
"The value of 'hrDeviceIndex' in the IETF Host Resources MIB 
(RFC 1514/2790), to be used for status queries for this port if 
the value of 'ppmPortSnmpStatusQueryEnabled' is 'true'.

If this object is zero, then monitoring applications MUST NOT 
attempt status queries for this port in the IETF Host Resources 
MIB (RFC 1514/2790) and/or IETF Printer MIB (RFC 1759/3805)."
   REFERENCE
"hrDeviceStatus, hrPrinterStatus, hrPrinterDetectedErrorState i
n IETF Host Resources MIB (RFC 1514/2790).
prtChannelStatus in IETF Printer MIB (RFC 1759/3805)."
   DEFVAL      { 0 }                   -- no host device index
   ::= { ppmPortEntry 7 }

---

From: Dennis Carney <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 26 Mar 2005 14:36:49 -0700

Hi Ira,

channels)
will ALL
>be shown 'down' in the MS tools.  That's not acceptable behaviour.

To me, that *does* seem like acceptable behavior (or if you'd prefer,
"behaviour"--is that your proximity to Canada showing? :-).

If I am a single network printer advertising both an LPR port and a RAW
port, if my one input tray is out of paper, then *both* ports *should* be
in an "out of paper" state in the host resources MIB.

If instead I want to differentiate between the two (I really can't think of
many good reasons to do this on a network printer), I can do this using two
different indices into the hr MIB.  But I would have guessed that 99% of
network printers would simply have all advertised ports (correctly, IMHO)
point to the same hr MIB entry.

Dennis Carney
IBM Printing Systems

             "McDonald, Ira"                                               
             <imcdonald@sharpl                                             
             abs.com>                                                   To 
                                       Dennis Carney/Boulder/IBM@IBMUS,    
             03/26/2005 09:12          [email-masked]                         
             AM                                                         cc 
                                       "Adams, Charles A"                  
                                       <[email-masked]>, 
                                       "'Bergman, Ron'"                    
                                       <[email-masked]>,       
                                       [email-masked]      
                                                                   Subject 
                                       RE: PMP> Comments on Printer Port   
                                       Monitor MIB 1.0 working draft d     
                                       ated March 21, 2005                 

                                                                           

Hi Dennis,

Cheers,
- Ira

-----Original Message-----
From: Dennis Carney [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Friday, March 25, 2005 2:43 PM
To: [email-masked]
Cc: Adams, Charles A; McDonald, Ira; 'Bergman, Ron';

Dennis
Inactive hide details for "McDonald, Ira" <[email-masked]>
"McDonald, Ira" <[email-masked]>

                         "McDon                                            
                         ald,                                              
                         Ira"                                              
                         <imcdo                                            
                         nald@s                                         To 
                         harpla                                            
                         bs.com           "'Bergman, Ron'"                 
                         >                <[email-masked]>,    
                         Sent             "McDonald, Ira"                  
                         by:              <[email-masked]>,       
                         pmp-ow           "Adams, Charles A"               
                         ner@pw           <[email-masked] 
                         g.org            m>, [email-masked]                  
                                                                           
                                                                        cc 
                         03/25/                                            
                         2005                                              
                         09:14                                     Subject 
                         AM                                                
                                          RE: PMP> Comments on Printer     
                                          Port Monitor MIB 1.0 working     
                                          draft d ated March 21, 2005      

                                                                           

Hi Ron,

Cheers,
- Ira

-----Original Message-----
From: Bergman, Ron [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Thursday, March 24, 2005 3:03 PM
To: McDonald, Ira; Adams, Charles A; [email-masked]
Subject: RE: PMP> Comments on Printer Port Monitor MIB 1.0 working draft
dated March 21, 2005

Ira,

Regarding your comment:

Ron

From the MIB: