PMP Mail Archive: Re[2]: PMP> Should Alerts be replicated???

PMP Mail Archive: Re[2]: PMP> Should Alerts be replicated???

Re[2]: PMP> Should Alerts be replicated???

Bill Wagner (bwagner@digprod.com)
Sat, 1 Feb 1997 15:10:41 -0500

Jay,

I believe that RFC1759 does allow binary alerts (obviously
non-critical) to be removed for table maintenance. I think it is
unreasonable to require that the alert table be large enough to
contain the maximum number of binary alerts possible within the
printer implementation. It is my understanding that the definitive
status of the device is in the rest of the MIB, with the Alert Table
merely operating as an assist.

Bill Wagner, DPI

______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________
Subject: Re: PMP> Should Alerts be replicated???
Author: JK Martin <jkm@underscore.com> at Internet
Date: 2/1/97 1:49 AM

Chris,

> I would like a volunteer to draft some language for this that
> would cover all the critical and non-critical alerts.

Ok, I'll bite... ;-)

Once a binary alert is placed into the Alert able, it shall remain
in the Alert Table until the condition for which it was created has
been cleared.

If a unary alert must be removed due to Alert Table space constraints,
then it shall not be reentered into the Alert Table should space become
available at a later time. At no time shall any type of alert be
replicated in the Alert Table.

This will require the agent to ensure that it can maintain an Alert
Table large enough to contain the maximum number of binary alerts
possible within the printer implementation.

...jay

----------------------------------------------------------------------
-- JK Martin | Email: jkm@underscore.com --
-- Underscore, Inc. | Voice: (603) 889-7000 --
-- 41C Sagamore Park Road | Fax: (603) 889-2699 --
-- Hudson, NH 03015-4915 | Web: http://www.underscore.com --
----------------------------------------------------------------------