Subject: JMP> RE: PWG> Charter: Traps for use with the Job Monitoring MIB

From: "Turner, Randy" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 18 Feb 1998 01:25:41 -0800

I'm assuming with the addition of traps for the job monitoring MIB, as
well as the existing printer MIB traps (alerts), and our desire to
include printer MIB alerts, as well as job notifications to IPP, we now
have a completely redundant, overlapping solution set ;) ;)

Randy

	-----Original Message-----
	From:	[email-masked]
[SMTP:[email-masked]]
	Sent:	Tuesday, February 17, 1998 8:00 PM
	To:	[email-masked]; [email-masked]; [email-masked]
	Subject:	Re:  PWG> Charter: Traps for use with the Job
Monitoring MIB

	Hi Ron,

	Would you consider having a telecon during the upcoming PWG
meeting
	in March, to widen the participation on the Job Mon MIB traps
	project discussion?  All of the key people at Xerox who have
	participated in Xerox (private) specification of job monitoring
	traps and trap registration methods are unable to attend in
March
	(I know - I've been checking with them).

	Thanks for pushing this IMPORTANT issue along.  As the first
	PWG standard and NOT an IETF standard, I believe the PWG Job
	Mon MIB has a unique opportunity to address domain-specific
	traps sensibly and MUCH more quickly than could be done
	for an IETF 'standards track' document.

	To stimultate discussion, my two cents on trap registration
	1)  SNMPv3 carries way to much security baggage, to be a
	    good trap registration method
	2)  There AREN'T any other IETF 'standards track' trap
	    registration methods
	3)  A PWG standardized solution for the PWG Job Mon MIB
	    could also EASILY be a PWG standardized solution
	    for the IETF/PWG Printer MIB (different OID subtree)
	4)  A PWG standardized solution could EASILY be SNMP
	    version independent (ie, SNMPv1, SNMPv1Secure[obsolete],
	    SNMPv2Historic[RFC144x series], SNMPv2[RFC 190x series],
	    and SNMPv3 [RFC227x series, last month])

	Cheers,
	- Ira McDonald