Bobby, we appreciate your efforts as editor. We just need to determine
the effect of the change. Leaving the syntax as it was may be the safest
path - that way we know nothing is broke. If I understand the definition...
(3) When encoding an object whose syntax is described using the BITS
construct, the value is encoded as an OCTET STRING, in which all
the named bits in (the definition of) the bitstring, commencing
with the first bit and proceeding to the last bit, are placed in
bits 8 to 1 of the first octet, followed by bits 8 to 1 of each
subsequent octet in turn, followed by as many bits as are needed of
the final subsequent octet, commencing with bit 8. Remaining bits,
if any, of the final octet are set to zero on generation and
ignored on receipt.
it is really an OCTET STRING, anyway... just given a different name which
tries to better reflect it's usage. I notice the definition (above)
references bits 8 to 1 and the usage in the Printer MIB states bits 0-7.
Condition Bit #
lowPaper 0
noPaper 1
lowToner 2
noToner 3
doorOpen 4
jammed 5
offline 6
serviceRequested 7
I also notice, on page 22 of the latest printer MIB, it states the
errors are encoded as Bits while (above) it states they are
encoded as an OCTET STRING.
Harry Lewis - IBM Printing Systems
harryl at us.ibm.compmp-owner at pwg.org on 11/17/98 11:49:40 AM
Please respond to pmp-owner at pwg.org
To: lpyoung at lexmark.com
cc: rdk at empiretech.com, pmp at pwg.org
Subject: PMP> Re: Syntax Change
Hi!
>2. Regarding why this change was made: Bobby thought and I
>agreed that using BITS more accurately reflected the use of
>hrPrinterDetectedErrorState. I checked with some MIB experts
>and one implementation and could not see how this change would
>break any implementations. The data that goes down "the wire"
>should not change. I will be the first to admit that I may
>have overlooked some impact to an implementation and if we did
>we can certainly re-examine this change.
I am merely the editor with respect to this issue. Ill do whatever
the PWG has come to consensus on. Just be sure, in the future, to
make requests to the editor based on the consensus of the working
group. Thats all I humbly ask for.
Bobby