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

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

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

From: Zehler, Peter (Peter.Zehler@xeroxlabs.com)
Date: Wed Jul 27 2005 - 07:48:15 EDT

  • Next message: McDonald, Ira: "RE: PMP> RE: Need clarification on the definition of RFC 3805 'pr tMarkerLifeCount' object"

    Harry,
     
    The device (i.e. PrtMarkerLifeCount) will still count feet of paper
    since that is what the device is using when it prints regardless of the
    content. The print service, which includes the RIP, counts the
    impressions for the job (i.e. datastream). The device controller would
    convert feet for run out or forms alignment to impressions in an
    implementation specific manner. These impresssions would not be counted
    as part of a job stream (i.e. other or perhaps maintenance). And yes I
    imagine the conversion would be rather arbitrary but consuming
    applications can be made to compensate to keep the customer happy.
     
    Pete

    Peter Zehler
    XEROX
    Xerox Innovation Group
    Email: Peter.Zehler@XeroxLabs.com
    Voice: (585) 265-8755
    FAX: (585) 265-7441
    US Mail: Peter Zehler
    Xerox Corp.
            800 Phillips Rd.
            M/S 128-25E
    Webster NY, 14580-9701

     

    ________________________________

    From: Harry Lewis [mailto:harryl@us.ibm.com]
    Sent: Tuesday, July 26, 2005 11:09 PM
    To: Zehler, Peter
    Cc: McDonald, Ira; pmp@pwg.org; ron.bergman@hitachi-ps.us.com
    Subject: Re: PMP> RE: Need clarification on the definition of RFC 3805
    'prtMarkerLifeCount' object

    How is a continuous forms device supposed to convert from feet to
    impressions? This does not sound feasible. This would imply shared
    knowledge, on a job basis, between the mechanism and the RIP. I think
    this is unlikely. Especially, during NPRO or forms alignment, it would
    likely become a totally arbitrary choice.
    ----------------------------------------------
    Harry Lewis
    IBM STSM
    Chairman - IEEE-ISTO Printer Working Group
    http://www.pwg.org
    IBM Printing Systems
    http://www.ibm.com/printers
    303-924-5337
    ----------------------------------------------

    "Zehler, Peter" <Peter.Zehler@xeroxlabs.com>
    Sent by: pmp-owner@pwg.org

    07/25/2005 06:31 AM

    To
    "McDonald, Ira" <imcdonald@sharplabs.com>, "Silver, Thomas"
    <Thomas.Silver@xerox.com>, Harry Lewis/Boulder/IBM@IBMUS,
    <ron.bergman@hitachi-ps.us.com>, <pmp@pwg.org>
    cc
    Subject
    PMP> RE: Need clarification on the definition of RFC 3805
    'prtMarkerLifeCount' object

            

    Ira,

    Although both behaviors are historically correct I believe the object is
    supposed to represent the total number of units that degrade the life of
    the imaging module. It is this definition that is embraced very
    specifically by the "PWG Imaging System Counters Specification". As you
    know the total impressions explicitly includes blank impressions as well
    as full color, highlight color and mono color impressions. The counter
    spec has standardized on the unit impression for marking at the service
    level. It is an implementation specific decision on how to map device
    specific measurements of distance (e.g. feet), time (e.g. hours) or
    characters to impression.

    Pete

    Peter Zehler
    XEROX
    Xerox Innovation Group
    Email: Peter.Zehler@XeroxLabs.com
    Voice: (585) 265-8755
    FAX: (585) 265-7441
    US Mail: Peter Zehler
    Xerox Corp.
           800 Phillips Rd.
           M/S 128-25E
    Webster NY, 14580-9701

    -----Original Message-----
    From: McDonald, Ira [mailto:imcdonald@sharplabs.com]
    Sent: Sunday, July 24, 2005 12:23 PM
    To: Silver, Thomas; McDonald, Ira; harryl@us.ibm.com;
    ron.bergman@hitachi-ps.us.com; Zehler, Peter; 'pmp@pwg.org'
    Subject: RE: Need clarification on the definition of RFC 3805
    'prtMarkerLifeCount' 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 : Wed Jul 27 2005 - 07:51:39 EDT