What we currently need solved is how prtStorageRefIndex and prtDeviceRefIndex
are actually indexed. As a reference, we looked that the mib walk from the
interoperability test, and we noticed that the two companies who had more than
one device in the prtStorage table, indexed the variables differently.
If we can figure out how a single printer references it's devices, then we will
be well on our way to two printers with shared devices.
>From Gail.Songer@eng.efi.com Sat Mar 8 19:19 EST 1997
> We had hoped to see some comments/suggestions on what the
> "correct" implementation should be, since two companies did them differently,
> but we have had no takers on the list.
> Was this inconsistency noticed during the review?
> On Mar 6, 5:51pm, Eugene Chen wrote:
> > Subject: PMP> Questions about RFC1759
> > I looked at the Interop mib walk test results. Vendor 2 has 2 storage
> > and they use prtStorageRefIndex.1.1 and prtStorageIndex.2.2. Vendor 4 has
> > devices,
> > with prtStorageRefIndex.1.1, .2.1, .3.1 and .4.1. Which of these is more
> > correct?
Gail Songer Electronics For Imaging firstname.lastname@example.org 2855 Campus Drive (415) 286-7235 San Mateo, CA 94403