PMP Mail Archive: Re: PMP> Top 25 minus 4 conditions/alerts proposal

PMP Mail Archive: Re: PMP> Top 25 minus 4 conditions/alerts proposal

Re: PMP> Top 25 minus 4 conditions/alerts proposal

Gail Songer (Gail.Songer@eng.efi.com)
Thu, 8 May 1997 10:11:14 -0700

So, I have been trying to keep up with this, but I may have missed the answer:

What did we decide to do with hrPrinterDetectedErrorState? What should be set
in this variable in this condition?

Sometime ago we discussed removing the association between
hrPrinterDetectedErrorState and hrDeviceStatus. Are we reversing that
decision?

Gail

On May 8, 12:49am, Lloyd Young wrote:
> Subject: Re: PMP> Top 25 minus 4 conditions/alerts proposal
> Anyone disagree with adding the proposed text in Jay's note?
> Lloyd
>
> --------------------- Forwarded message ------------------
> To: Lloyd Young
> cc: pmp%pwg.org @ interlock.lexmark.com @ SMTP
> From: jkm%underscore.com @ interlock.lexmark.com (JK Martin) @ SMTP
> Date: 05/07/97 01:54:56 PM
> Subject: Re: PMP> Top 25 minus 4 conditions/alerts proposal
>
> Lloyd,
>
> When you say (below) that "no changes to the Printer MIB are required",
> we can assume you mean the actual MIB definition and not the draft text
> surrounding that definition, right?
>
> I agree that the *MIB* should not change, but certainly the text of the
> I-D (that becomes the RFC) should be modified to include a simple, yet
> concise statement about critical alerts (paraphrasing your proposed
> text):
>
> Any condition for which the printer stops operation should result
> in the addition of an alert in the Alert Table; such an alert must
> have its prtAlertSeverityLevel variable assigned with the value
> critical(3).
>
> I would suggest that this text should go into the I-D/RFC text at the
> very least. If we also want to put it in Gail's FAQ, then great.
>
> ...jay
>-- End of excerpt from Lloyd Young