PMP Mail Archive: RE: PMP> Printer MIB - MARKER ISSUE

PMP Mail Archive: RE: PMP> Printer MIB - MARKER ISSUE

RE: PMP> Printer MIB - MARKER ISSUE

JK Martin (jkm@underscore.com)
Thu, 3 Jul 1997 15:03:07 -0400 (EDT)

Looks good to me, Bob. Thanks for the analysis and fine example.

...jay

----- Begin Included Message -----

From: Bob Pentecost <bpenteco@boi.hp.com>
To: "pmp@pwg.org" <pmp@pwg.org>,
"'lpyoung@lexmark.com'"
<lpyoung@lexmark.com>,
"'Jeff Rackowitz'"
<JRackowitz@engpo.msmailgw.intermec.com>
Subject: RE: PMP> Printer MIB - MARKER ISSUE
Date: Thu, 3 Jul 1997 11:05:26 -0600
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

When I first read about using the generic Alert Codes, I was concerned with being able to report the failure with enough detail in a device that has multiple parts that could be over/under temperature. I thought that prtAlertGroup would indicate Marker and the AlertGroupIndex could only point to the single marker. Then I was talking to Lloyd and it looks like the following would be more appropriate.

If you go with the generic subunit error reporting, then you must add printHead(23) to the PrtMarkerSuppliesTypeTC list. This assumes that you consider the print head to be a marker supply. This will allow the failure to be reported with the following:

prtAlertGroup = markerSupplies(11)
prtAlertGroupIndex = value for the print head
prtAlertCode = subunitUnderTemperature(tbd) or subunitOverTemperature(tbd) or ...

Any thoughts?

Bob Pentecost
HP

----------
From: lpyoung@lexmark.com[SMTP:lpyoung@lexmark.com]
Sent: Wednesday, July 02, 1997 12:05 PM
To: pmp@pwg.org
Subject: PMP> Printer MIB - MARKER ISSUE

Jeff's solution 1.2 appears reasonable to me. If there are not
any objections, I will include solution 1.2 in the Printer MIB.
Lloyd Young

---------------------- Forwarded by Lloyd Young on 07/02/97 02:00 PM
---------------------------
|------------->

To: pmp%pwg.org@interlock.lexmark.com
cc: hastings%cp10.es.xerox.com@interlock.lexmark.com (bcc: Lloyd Young)
Subject: PMP> Printer MIB - MARKER ISSUE

MARKER ISSUE - Event codes for Thermal Transfer/Direct Thermal Print Heads.
In trying to come up with a PrtAlertCodeTC for thermal transfer or direct
thermal label printer print heads to report problems, I reviewed the
PrtAlertCodeTC section for the "Marker group". This group lists the
following enumerationIs:
-- Marker group
markerFuserUnderTemperature(1001),
markerFuserOverTemperature(1002),
markerFuserTimingFailure(1003),
markerFuserThermistorFailure(1004),
markerAdjustingPrintQuality(1005),
I would have to say that the term "fuser" applies to laser technology. I
donIt think this term applies to direct thermal or thermal transfer
technology. So to allow thermal transfer, direct thermal and any future
technologies to be included, There are a couple of ways that the
enumerationIs can address this issue.
>>> SOLUTION 1.1
Create the following enumerationIs in the Marker group:
markerPrintHeadUnderTemperature(tbd),
markerPrintHeadOverTemperature(tbd),
markerPrintHeadTimingFailure(tbd),
markerPrintHeadThermistorFailure(tbd),
This was my initial suggestion. I asked Tom Hastings about these
enumerationIs at the Nashua meeting. Tom suggested that a generic event
code
may be more appropriate.
>>> SOLUTION 1.2
Create the following enumerationIs in the subunit group:
subunitUnderTemperature(tbd),
subunitOverTemperature(tbd),
subunitTimingFailure(tbd),
subunitThermistorFailure(tbd),
Either solution would require new enumerationIs to be added to the
PrtAlertGroupTC object. I agree with Tom Hastings that a generic event code
would be the better solution. This will allow all Marker technologies
(current and future) to be addressed.
Jeff Rackowitz
Intermec Corp
jeffr@intermec.com

----- End Included Message -----