[IPP] printer-state-reasons Customer Replaceable Unit Missing

[IPP] printer-state-reasons Customer Replaceable Unit Missing

[IPP] printer-state-reasons Customer Replaceable Unit Missing

Hills, Lee D Lee.Hills at xerox.com
Thu Nov 21 17:21:05 UTC 2013


This sounds reasonable to me. 

Lee

-----Original Message-----
From: Michael Sweet [mailto:msweet at apple.com] 
Sent: Thursday, November 21, 2013 9:17 AM
To: Hills, Lee D
Cc: ipp at pwg.org; wims at pwg.org
Subject: Re: [IPP] printer-state-reasons Customer Replaceable Unit Missing

Lee,

While we haven't defined keywords for these conditions, I think that is a clear omission that needs to be addressed.  The following are my suggested registrations for new "printer-state-reason" keyword values, with a preference to following the RFC 2911 naming for a few:

Attributes (attribute syntax)
  Keyword Attribute Value			Reference
  -----------------------			---------
printer-state-reasons (1setOf type2 keyword)	[RFC2911]
    cleaner-missing
    developer-missing
    fuser-missing
    marker-ink-missing
    marker-print-ribbon-missing
    marker-supply-missing
    marker-waste-missing
    marker-waste-ink-receptacle-missing
    marker-waste-toner-receptacle-missing
    opc-missing
    toner-missing

For completeness we should also register PrtAlertCodeTC values to cover all of the RFC 2911 and new keywords above:

    -- Marker Supplies group
      markerCleanerMissing(1116),     #### CAUTION, PRELIMINARY VALUES NOT REGISTERED
      markerDeveloperMissing(1117),
      markerFuserMissing(1118),
      markerInkMissing(1119),
      markerOpcMissing(1120),
      markerPrintRibbonMissing(1121),
      markerSupplyAlmostEmpty(1122),
      markerSupplyEmpty(1123),
      markerSupplyMissing(1124),
      markerWasteAlmostFull(1125),
      markerWasteFull(1126),
      markerWasteMissing(1127),
      markerWasteInkReceptacleMissing(1128),
      markerWasteTonerReceptacleMissing(1129),

Note: it appears that PWG 5100.9 defined a few keywords with duplicate semantics for existing 2911 keywords; I think we should deprecate them as part of an errata for 5100.9 (which can correct the table errors):

    RFC 2911					PWG 5100.9
    --------------------------------------	---------------------------------
    developer-low				marker-developer-almost-empty
    developer-empty				marker-developer-empty
    media-needed				input-manual-input-request


Thoughts?




More information about the ipp mailing list