This one of those things that really should be in the interoperability test.
Not only should the 3 hr variables be read but also the subUnitStatus.
Variations would be to report the tray as "low" but the subUnitStatus report
Critical or you could ignore the text and say that there is tray out of paper
and that the printer has a warning.
On Jan 22, 5:12pm, Harry Lewis <email@example.com> wrote:
> Subject: PMP> Paper Out with Tray linking - Alerts
> I guess the short question here is... does anyone think it's a "violation"
> to flag a "paper out" WARNING. The key concern being the documented
> correlation between hrPrinterDetectedErrorState (1) paperOut and
> hrDeviceStatus (5) down.
> The longer story...
> I've been wrestling with the question of events associated with linked
> resources. In general, the question pertains to Input and Output bins that
> operate in a sequential manner. If two physical input trays are linked and
> the first tray reaches empty there are (at least) 3 alert table options:
> 1. Treat the linked system as one logical tray that has a paper low
> 2. Treat the linked system as 2 physical trays, one of which has a
> paper OUT WARNING.
> 3. Do nothing until the 2nd tray reaches paperLow.
> The idea behind (2) is that it would be nice to inform the "operator"
> that physical tray 1 is empty although the printer is still fully
> operational. The problem with (1) is a very premature warning if 3
> trays happen to be linked. I suspect (3) is what most implementations
> do today.
> Again, the main concern with (2) is that the hrMIB suggests that paperOut
> is a down condition not a warning. Are we treating this correlation as
> a "hard" expectation or just a recommendation?
> Any other comments on how we might like to see this handled?
> Harry Lewis - IBM Printing Systems.
>-- End of excerpt from Harry Lewis <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Gail Songer Electronics For Imaging email@example.com 2855 Campus Drive (415) 286-7235 San Mateo, CA 94403