Bakeoff

Bakeoff

Bakeoff

Bob Pentecost bpenteco at boi.hp.com
Wed Aug 7 16:22:11 EDT 1996


Harry wrote:
> Where to go... to me the obvious required step is for the PWG to open an
> agenda item to clearly define and document the use of device status, 
printer
> status and printer detected error state! I think it should be quite clear 
that
> we did not do such a good job of this in the past.


I agree. We need to look at the hr... status objects as well as the 
sub-unit status.


> Of course, if you all just want to reverse your bits... ;-)


I won't have to! I know which printer has the correct implementation!  :-)

Bob Pentecost
HP


----------
From:  Harry Lewis <harryl at VNET.IBM.COM>[SMTP:harryl at VNET.IBM.COM]
Sent:  Tuesday, August 06, 1996 4:57 PM
To:  pwg at pwg.org
Subject:  Bakeoff


There's been a lot of talk about the bakeoff, was it a success or failure
what did we learn where do we go. I'll put my 2cents in now.


I consider the bakeoff a valuable event in that many of the fruits of the
efforts relating to and resulting from the PWG activity were wrought and
shown together in one space. In my opinion the "bakeoff" demonstrated not 
only
a high degree of interoperability (dozens of printer configuration objects
and many printer events being reported by 6 different printer vendors in
exactly the same fashion - and at least two working software 
implementations)
but also pointed out some glaring deficiencies - the main one being printer
status - a very crucial element. Also, each company learned something about
their individual implementations that they may need to "tweak", I'm sure.


Where to go... to me the obvious required step is for the PWG to open an
agenda item to clearly define and document the use of device status, 
printer
status and printer detected error state! I think it should be quite clear 
that
we did not do such a good job of this in the past.


It's true, we seem to have "fouled up" on one of the more crucial elements
of remote device management.  If there's a lesson, in retrospect, we
should have stuck with our initial goal to fully and accurately define
printer status and not allowed ourselves to be side tracked into encoding
snippets of status from existing MIBs. The real question NOW is - can we
act as a PWG and document the encoding without battling over who's
existing implementation(s) should be preserved.


Of course, if you all just want to reverse your bits... ;-)



More information about the Pwg mailing list