PMP Mail Archive: Re: PMP> Top 25 minus 4 conditions/alerts proposal

PMP Mail Archive: Re: PMP> Top 25 minus 4 conditions/alerts proposal

Re: PMP> Top 25 minus 4 conditions/alerts proposal

Gail Songer (Gail.Songer@eng.efi.com)
Thu, 1 May 1997 12:03:33 -0700

Jay,

I would have to agree with Bob's definition for two reasons.

The first and probably the weakest is that his definition requires the least
amount of code work. You get the "low toner" from the engine and put it into
the table. At this point, you don't know if the printer is going to pause
printing(or how long the printer is going to pause printing) or if the printer
is just going to continue printer. All the SNMP code needs to do is put the
low toner message in the alert table. Sometime later, SNMP code receives a
message that the printer is waiting (or "offline"), and still later that the
printer is no longer waiting. The SNMP code is divorced from having to know
why the printer is waiting, and why the printer continues(other stuff could
have occured that would cause the printer to also go offline). The low toner
still exists, and it exists in the same form from the begining. This also has
the benifit that only one error means that the printer may be in need of toner,
rather than two different entries that mean basically the same thing.

The second is the syncronozation with the the HR varialbes. "low toner" is
specified as being a "warning" for hrDeviceStatus and previously this group
desided that these correlations should be maintained. Therefore a "toner low"
in hrPrinterDetectedErrorState can ONLY cause the printer to be "warning".
With Bob's wording, the we reflect the true state of printer by forcing the
printer into the "down" condition in hrDeviceStatus with "offline" added to
hrPrinterDetectedErrorState.

Gail

On May 1, 1:11pm, JK Martin wrote:
> Subject: RE: PMP> Top 25 minus 4 conditions/alerts proposal
> Bob,
>
> Thanks for following up on this topic. You know, though, after reading
> your proposed text, it suddenly hit me that we may not have been properly
> analyzing the scenario in the first place.
>
> A quick review of the basic scenario for those not in the PMP telecon
> during which this new topic was first discussed:
>
> Some printers can be configured such that a certain condition
> normally considered as a "warning" (such as "toner low") can
> be configured so as to stop the printer altogether, that is,
> the event results in a critical condition, not a warning.
>
> Now (assuming the above picture is correct), if we step back back
> and look at the words, in essence what we have is the interesting
> situation where the printer can actually *map* a warning condition
> to a critical condition.
>
> As such, for this scenario, a "toner low" condition is not at all
> a non-critical (ie, warning) condition, but rather a very real
> critical condition. There is nothing in the alert code tagged for
> "toner low" that implies it is implicitly a non-critical alert, right?
>
> If this is indeed true, then we don't have to worry about muddying up
> the Top 25 Conditions table with a new situation in which a non-critical
> alert is treated in some way as a critical alert.
>
> Basic premise for everyone to agree upon (and maybe a useful bit of
> clarifying text for the new Printer MIB draft):
>
> The printer (and only the printer) decides which alert codes are
> critical versus non-critical.
>
> Does everyone agree with this? If so, then (following Bob's text) when
> the user "continues" the printer (ie, acknowledges the warning condition),
> then shouldn't the printer remove *both* the Offline and critical alert
> (describing the toner low condition), and add a new non-critical alert
> to say that the condition still remains (but is no longer critical)?
>
> Comments?
>
> ...jay
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> -- JK Martin | Email: jkm@underscore.com --
> -- Underscore, Inc. | Voice: (603) 889-7000 --
> -- 41C Sagamore Park Road | Fax: (603) 889-2699 --
> -- Hudson, NH 03051-4915 | Web: http://www.underscore.com --
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> ----- Begin Included Message -----
>
> >From pmp-owner@pwg.org Thu May 1 12:45 EDT 1997
> From: Bob Pentecost <bpenteco@boi.hp.com>
> To: "pmp@pwg.org" <pmp@pwg.org>, "'Chuck Adams'" <adamsc@pogo.WV.TEK.COM>
> Subject: RE: PMP> Top 25 minus 4 conditions/alerts proposal
> Date: Thu, 1 May 1997 10:43:06 -0600
> Encoding: 39 TEXT
>
> During the Tuesday phone conference, I offered some wording about a
> particular alert condition that is non-critical yet the printer stops due
> to an option being set in the printer. Here's the wording which can be
> added to Chuck's table if desired.
>
> "When a non-critical condition occurs, the printer may choose to stop
> printing by going offline (e.g., when a toner low condition occurs, the
> printer might stop to notify the user); in which case there would be two
> alerts entered into the alert table, one for the error condition and one
> for the offline condition. The offline condition is considered to be the
> critical alert that is stopping printing. Putting the printer online
> without fixing the error condition causes the offline alert to be removed
> from the table, but the non-critical alert remains in the table until the
> error condition is fixed."
>
> Bob
>
> ----------
> From: Chuck Adams[SMTP:adamsc@pogo.WV.TEK.COM]
> Sent: Thursday, May 01, 1997 9:33 AM
> To: pmp@pwg.org
> Subject: PMP> Top 25 minus 4 conditions/alerts proposal
>
> Folks,
>
> I have posted the proposed Appendix wording for the
> the Top 25 minus 4 alerts document to the ftp site. See:
>
> ftp://pwg.org/pub/pwg/pmp/contributions/err4.doc
> ftp://pwg.org/pub/pwg/pmp/contributions/err4.pdf
>
> I believe this reflects all the changes requested
> in the Wednesday conference call.
>
> Chuck Adams
> Tektronix, Inc.
>
> ----- End Included Message -----
>-- End of excerpt from JK Martin