PMP Mail Archive: PMP> RE: Need clarification on the definit

PMP Mail Archive: PMP> RE: Need clarification on the definit

PMP> RE: Need clarification on the definition of RFC 3805 'prtMarkerLi feCount' object

From: McDonald, Ira (imcdonald@sharplabs.com)
Date: Sun Jul 24 2005 - 12:22:52 EDT

  • Next message: wamwagner@comcast.net: "Re: PMP> RE: Need clarification on the definition of RFC 3805 'prtMarkerLi feCount' object"

    Hi Tom,

    Sorry I missed this the first time around. Wasn't sent to PMP
    mailing list, so it got killed by spam filters.

    The answer to your question is that both behaviors by duplex
    printers on a single page job are historically correct
    (increment by one or increment by two). But your question
    only makes sense if the PrtMarkerCounterUnitTC chosen unit
    is 'impressions(7)'.

    The principal use of PrtMarkerLifeCount is to record use of
    the marker physical path. A duplex but blank back side
    _probably_ still went through the duplex path and caused
    wear on rollers, etc.

    There is new guidance here. In the PWG Imaging System Counters
    spec (completed last call and soon to be formally approved),
    a 'blank impression' MUST be counted in an overall 'Impressions'
    counter (and also in the separate 'BlankImpressions' counter).
    Therefore, the best practice for prtMarkerLifeCount using
    impressions would now be to increment by TWO (not intuitive,
    I know).

    Pete Zehler - please put in your two cents here, since it's
    a question from Xerox - thanks.

    Cheers,
    - Ira

    Ira McDonald (Musician / Software Architect)
    Blue Roof Music / High North Inc
    PO Box 221 Grand Marais, MI 49839
    phone: +1-906-494-2434
    email: imcdonald@sharplabs.com

    > -----Original Message-----
    > From: Silver, Thomas [mailto:Thomas.Silver@xerox.com]
    > Sent: Sunday, July 24, 2005 8:38 AM
    > To: imcdonald@sharplabs.com; harryl@us.ibm.com;
    > ron.bergman@hitachi-ps.us.com
    > Subject: RE: Need clarification on the definition of RFC 3805
    > 'prtMarkerLifeCount' object
    >
    >
    > Would you folks kindly respond to this issue please?
    > Thanks,
    > Tom
    >
    > -----Original Message-----
    > From: Thomas Silver [mailto:tsilver@rochester.rr.com]
    > Sent: Friday, July 15, 2005 7:52 AM
    > To: imcdonald@sharplabs.com; harryl@us.ibm.com;
    > ron.bergman@hitachi-ps.us.com
    > Cc: Silver, Thomas
    > Subject: Need clarification on the definition of RFC 3805
    > 'prtMarkerLifeCount' object
    >
    > Hi folks,
    >
    > Would you mind clarifying the definition of the 'prtMarkerLifeCount'
    > object as defined by RFC 3805 - Printer MIB v2?
    >
    > I've spoken w/ some individuals who believe that the
    > 'prtMarkerLifeCount'
    > object is supposed to represent the total number of units
    > marked by the
    > imaging module (i.e. only increment the count by 1 whenever marks are
    > put on a side of paper when units = impressions). Others believe that
    > this object is supposed to represent the total number of units that
    > degrade the life of the imaging module (i.e. blank sheets degrade the
    > life of a print cartridge even though no marks were made on a side of
    > paper, assuming units=impressions, and therefore need to be
    > counted). In
    > other words, on some duplex-enabled printers, if you submit a
    > single-page document, the 'prtMarkerLifeCount' object will be
    > incremented by a value of 2 while on other duplex-enabled
    > printers, the
    > 'prtMarkerLifeCount' object will be incremented by a value of 1. Which
    > is correct?
    >
    > Thanks in advance for the clarification,
    >
    > Tom :-)
    >
    > System Engineer
    > CWW/XDM/MMC Console Development
    > XGS\GD&D\GD\SE&PM
    > thomas.silver@usa.xerox.com
    > 8*222-7219/585-422-7219
    >



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Jul 24 2005 - 12:25:34 EDT