PMP Mail Archive: Re: PMP> Should Alerts be replicated???

PMP Mail Archive: Re: PMP> Should Alerts be replicated???

Re: PMP> Should Alerts be replicated???

JK Martin (jkm@underscore.com)
Sat, 01 Feb 1997 17:11:35 -0500

Bill Wagner wrote:

> 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.

I, too, used to think that it was unreasonable to insist that an agent
be required to maintain a maximally sized Alert Table...until someone
from a printer company (I forget who, sorry) pointed out that, in
reality, such a Table would not have to be that large, since when it
comes right down to it, there are not that many alerts that can be
simultaneously present at any given time.

Can any printer vendors either concur or refute this position? We
(non-printer vendors) will have to trust your judgement. ;-)

...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 --
----------------------------------------------------------------------