PMP Mail Archive: RE: PMP> Indexing option for prtAlertGroupIndex to identify function

RE: PMP> Indexing option for prtAlertGroupIndex to identify function

From: Stuart Rowley (Stuart.Rowley@ktd-kyocera.com)
Date: Mon Nov 06 2006 - 12:44:03 EST

  • Next message: McDonald, Ira: "RE: PMP> Indexing option for prtAlertGroupIndex to identify funct ion"

    Hi Ron,

     

    Your description of the indexing is appropriate; however, there is still
    no mention of prtAlertGroupIndex which is the same as the index of
    prtInput, prtChannel, etc. but in the Alert, prtAlertGroupIndex is what
    allows the management app to identify which function the alert is
    relating to. I think completely leaving prtAlertGroupIndex out of this
    text is a mistake.

     

    I am also concerned about this sentence: The index position to be used
    is the least significant index, not the position occupied by hrDeviceID.

    I think hrDeviceID should not be introduced here without further
    clarification. We discussed the use of hrDeviceID as an alternative
    method for distinguishing the function, but it does not relate to the
    use of the index position at all, so I think this is just confusing. If
    we mention hrDeviceID, it should be a separate paragraph saying why
    using the hrDeviceID for the scan function is not an acceptable
    alternative for determining the function that an alert is related to. It
    is not clear to me what "The index position to be used is the least
    significant index," is trying to convey. Are you saying that for a
    prtChannel relating to the fax, the index should start with 24576 rather
    than say 25000? Is this necessary to state?

     

    prtCovers should be prtCover.

     

    Thanks,

     

    Stuart

     

    Stuart Rowley

    Network Product Mgr.

    Kyocera Technology Development

    1855 Gateway Blvd. #400

    Concord, CA 94520

    stuart.rowley@ktd-kyocera.com

    V: 925.849.3306

    F: 925.849.3399

     

     

     

    ________________________________

    From: Bergman, Ron [mailto:Ron.Bergman@rpsa.ricoh.com]
    Sent: Thursday, November 02, 2006 4:05 PM
    To: Stuart Rowley
    Subject: RE: PMP> Indexing option for prtAlertGroupIndex to identify
    function

     

    Hi Stuart,

     

    I made some modifications to your text. I thing there is still a
    misunderstanding regarding the index this grouping applies to. Review
    this part carefully.

     

    11 Appendix A Suggested Indexing Method (Informative)

    For the MFD subunits that are represented in the common alert groups of
    prtMediaPath, prtInput, prtChannel, prtConsole, prtCovers,
    systemGeneralTransformer, systemGeneralOutputChannel, and
    systemGeneralSupply, there may be no information to indicate the MFD
    function associated with the alert.

    To allow an application implementation to easily determine the
    functional device that is associated with an alert, it is recommended
    that table index groups be assigned to each device. The index position
    to be used is the least significant index, not the position occupied by
    hrDeviceID. For example, in the prtMediaPath group, this applies to
    prtMediaPathIndex. Although the exact grouping may be implementation
    dependent, the following grouping is strongly suggested to provide
    interoperability between MFDs and management applications.

    It is recommended all MFDs assign table index values from 1 to 16383
    (0x0001 to 0x3FFF) to the printer, the values from 20480 to 24575
    (0x5000 to 0x5FFF) are to be assigned to the scan device and the values
    from 24576 to 28671 (0x6000 to 0x6FFF) are to be assigned to the fax
    device.

     

    Let me know if you agree.

     

        Ron

     

     

    ________________________________

    From: Stuart Rowley [mailto:Stuart.Rowley@ktd-kyocera.com]
    Sent: Wednesday, November 01, 2006 12:02 PM
    To: Bergman, Ron
    Subject: RE: PMP> Indexing option for prtAlertGroupIndex to identify
    function

    Ron,

     

    I remember Ira saying recommended was too strong, but I kind of don't
    get that. This is in a never never land of not being normative, but on
    the other hand if everyone uses different ranges, then management apps
    make wrong assumptions. The only reason not to use recommended in my
    opinion is due to a special meaning of recommended in "standards-ese".

     

    Thanks,

     

    Stuart

     

     

    ________________________________

    From: Bergman, Ron [mailto:Ron.Bergman@rpsa.ricoh.com]
    Sent: Wednesday, November 01, 2006 11:56 AM
    To: Stuart Rowley
    Subject: RE: PMP> Indexing option for prtAlertGroupIndex to identify
    function

     

    Thanks Stuart, looks good. I hope to be able to get back to this later
    in the week.

     

    You probably missed some of the discussion, Ira indicated that
    "recommended" was too strong (?) and indicated a requirement. We agreed
    to use "suggested" instead. Whatever...

     

    Too bad you missed the meeting with Ira actually present. He is an
    interesting character.

     

        Regards,

        Ron

     

    ________________________________

    From: Stuart Rowley [mailto:Stuart.Rowley@ktd-kyocera.com]
    Sent: Tuesday, October 31, 2006 12:00 PM
    To: pmp@pwg.org
    Cc: Bergman, Ron
    Subject: PMP> Indexing option for prtAlertGroupIndex to identify
    function

    Ron,

     

    I took a stab at new text for section 7 Recommended Indexing Method.

     

    Ira suggested that it should not be normative and should therefore be in
    an appendix. I wasn't sure how to handle whether the ranges are
    recommended or just an example. If there is no explicit agreement on the
    ranges, then a management app has no idea of the special meaning of the
    index. Therefore, "recommended" seems appropriate to me. I expanded the
    ranges because Ira said that some device implementations may bump into
    the previous range limits.

     

    Appendix (x) - prtAlertGroupIndex Indexing Option

    The various MFD functions share some common alert groups, such as
    prtMediaPath, prtInput, prtOutput, prtChannel, prtConsole, prtCover,
    etc., For alerts in these common alert groups, there may be no
    information which indicates the MFD function affected by the alert. The
    recommended method to allow a management application to associate an
    alert with a specific device function is to assign index ranges to each
    device function. The following prtAlertGroupIndex index ranges are
    recommended; index values from 1 to 255 (0x0001 to 0x00FF) may be
    assigned to the print function, index values from 256 to 511 (0x0100 to
    0x01FF) may be assigned to the scan function, and index values from 512
    to 767 (0x0200 to 0x02FF) may be assigned to the fax function. Note that
    this method does not indicate when a common group alert affects multiple
    device functions. For example, an open cover may affect the print, fax,
    and scan functions, but only one prtAlertGroupIndex is used.

     

    For the alert groups that are specific to one MFD function, such as
    faxDeviceGeneral or scanDeviceScanner, prtAlertGroupIndex indices may be
    assigned normally, i.e starting at index 1.

     

    Best regards,

     

    Stuart

     

    Stuart Rowley

    Network Product Mgr.

    Kyocera Technology Development

    1855 Gateway Blvd. #400

    Concord, CA 94520

    stuart.rowley@ktd-kyocera.com

    V: 925.849.3306

    F: 925.849.3399

     

     



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Mon Nov 06 2006 - 12:43:46 EST