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

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

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

Ira McDonald blueroofmusic at gmail.com
Wed Dec 4 17:14:04 UTC 2013


Hi Lee,

During Monday's PWG IPP call, we agreed to accept your proposed updates
for missing CRUs (as further clarified by Mike Sweet) - these should be
applied
to IPP printer-state-reasons and PrtAlertCodeTC.  Mike and I have action
items
to get these registered with IANA for IPP and Printer MIB.

Thanks very much for this good catch!

Cheers,
- Ira (co-chair of IPP WG)


Ira McDonald (Musician / Software Architect)
Co-Chair - TCG Trusted Mobility Solutions WG
Chair - Linux Foundation Open Printing WG
Secretary - IEEE-ISTO Printer Working Group
Co-Chair - IEEE-ISTO PWG Internet Printing Protocol WG
IETF Designated Expert - IPP & Printer MIB
Blue Roof Music / High North Inc
http://sites.google.com/site/blueroofmusic
http://sites.google.com/site/highnorthinc
mailto: blueroofmusic at gmail.com
Winter  579 Park Place  Saline, MI  48176  734-944-0094
Summer  PO Box 221  Grand Marais, MI 49839  906-494-2434



On Thu, Nov 21, 2013 at 12:21 PM, Hills, Lee D <Lee.Hills at xerox.com> wrote:

> 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?
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> ipp mailing list
> ipp at pwg.org
> https://www.pwg.org/mailman/listinfo/ipp
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.pwg.org/pipermail/wims/attachments/20131204/a476e3f6/attachment.html>


More information about the wims mailing list