PMP Mail Archive: Re: PMP> alert condition standardization and conformance

PMP Mail Archive: Re: PMP> alert condition standardization and conformance

Re: PMP> alert condition standardization and conformance

Gail Songer (Gail.Songer@eng.efi.com)
Mon, 17 Feb 1997 13:57:00 -0800

Harry,

Was interoperability really shown? Given the variance is the results, I
definately question your statement. Jay, as one of those application
management vendors, what do you think?

I beleive that the standardization of the 25 printer conditions will yeild
reasonable and useful results, but these are very, very basic conditions. What
about all the rest. I have a list of 100 engine erors for one printer and a
little over half of the errors on this list are not covered by the 25 printer
conditions. As of yet, I don't have the list of formatter errors or channel
errors but there are probably around another 50 of those. So I still have to
make guesses on around 100 printer conditions. Granted, I may modify my
responses based on the base 25, but the field is still wide open. What do I do
when the disk is full? When the tray is lifting? When I need a different type
of paper?

The point is that these 25 errors will not solve our interoperability problems,
it is really only a start. There a a whole lot more "common" errors out there.

Gail

On Feb 16, 11:00pm, Harry Lewis <harryl@vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
> Subject: PMP> alert condition standardization and conformance
> Gail wrote...
>
> >So today I was presenting some information on the alert table, sub-unit
status
> >and the 3 hr variables. As we were discussing all of the information that
> >needed to be accumulated in order to respond to each of these variables, I
> >mentioned the work that was occurring in this illustrious group regarding
the
> >standardization of common conditions.
> >
> >They asked how they could claim interoperability given that so few of the
> >conditions were being addressed. Yes they understood that given this set of
> >conditions they could extrapolate other conditions, but would this really
> >provide the results for which the committee is looking?
>
> Gail, at the test we showed two separately developed printer management
> applications managing 6 separately developed printers. Was
> interoperability demonstrated? YES. Is there room for improvement? YES.
>
> The data we collected using the test tools will help us improve our
> future implementations and could result in some minor adjustments to
> the specifications themselves.
>
> The effort you refer to, identification of the top 25 printer events
> and clarification as to the values expected in the alert table, sub-
> unit status and the 3 hrMIB variables is what we distilled as top
> priority. Why do you question whether this will yield reasonable results?
>
> Harry Lewis - IBM Printing Systems
>
>-- End of excerpt from Harry Lewis <harryl@vnet.ibm.com>

-- 

Gail Songer Electronics For Imaging gail.songer@eng.efi.com 2855 Campus Drive (415) 286-7235 San Mateo, CA 94403