Gail,
I certainly suggested that if the HR MIB model for printers ends up
conflicting with what we believe is the *right* model for handling
certain conditions, then yes, we should consider "deprecating" our
association with the HR MIB status variables.
However, if you agree that the values I proposed for the HR MIB variables
(below) are correct, then for the "critical toner low" condition, there
is no conflict. Again, assuming the values I proposed are correct.
Someone had previously illustrated a scenario in which the Alert Table
entry would be in conflict with the previously published set of related
HR MIB values. What was that scenario?
...jay
----- Begin Included Message -----
From: "Gail Songer" <Gail.Songer at eng.efi.com>
Date: Thu, 8 May 1997 10:44:38 -0700
To: JK Martin <jkm at underscore.com>
Subject: Re: PMP> Top 25 minus 4 conditions/alerts proposal
Cc: pmp at pwg.org
Jay,
You always catch me when I am being unclear. Would you please stop that? :)
Yes, I am speaking of the toner low condition that causes the printer to
temporarily pause.
>From your response, I gather you are up for the break in associations as
defined by the host resourses mib...
Gail
On May 8, 1:40pm, JK Martin wrote:
> Subject: Re: PMP> Top 25 minus 4 conditions/alerts proposal
> Gail,
>> > What did we decide to do with hrPrinterDetectedErrorState? What should be
set
> > in this variable in this condition?
> >
> > Sometime ago we discussed removing the association between
> > hrPrinterDetectedErrorState and hrDeviceStatus. Are we reversing that
> > decision?
>> When you say "in this condition", are you referring to the printer-stopping
> case of "toner low"? If so, then wouldn't the Host Resources MIB variables
> be set to:
>> hrDeviceStatus down(5)
> hrPrinterStatus other(1)
> hrPrinterDetectedErrorState lowToner(1)
>> Or are you thinking of a different condition?
>> ...jay
>-- End of excerpt from JK Martin
----- End Included Message -----