On May 8, 1:49pm, JK Martin wrote:
> Subject: Re: PMP> Top 25 minus 4 conditions/alerts proposal
> Gail,
>
> I certainly suggested that if the HR MIB model for printers ends up
> conflicting with what we believe is the *right* model for handling
> certain conditions, then yes, we should consider "deprecating" our
> association with the HR MIB status variables.
>
> However, if you agree that the values I proposed for the HR MIB variables
> (below) are correct, then for the "critical toner low" condition, there
> is no conflict. Again, assuming the values I proposed are correct.
I am a bit confused here. The definition that you have proposed:
> >
> > hrDeviceStatus down(5)
> > hrPrinterStatus other(1)
> > hrPrinterDetectedErrorState lowToner(1)
> >
is in conflict the host resources mib. "lowToner" forces hrDeviceStatus to
"warning" not "down". One way to avoid conflict is to add "offline" to
hrPrinterDetectedErrorState since "offline" requires "down" in hrDeviceStatus.
This, unfortunatly, brings us back to the alert table. I suppose that having
a toner low critical, that would change to a warning when the printer continues
would work and still keep everything consistent.
>
> Someone had previously illustrated a scenario in which the Alert Table
> entry would be in conflict with the previously published set of related
> HR MIB values. What was that scenario?
>
> ...jay
>