PMP Mail Archive: Re[2]: PMP> Top 25 minus 4 conditions/alerts proposal

PMP Mail Archive: Re[2]: PMP> Top 25 minus 4 conditions/alerts proposal

Re[2]: PMP> Top 25 minus 4 conditions/alerts proposal

Bill Wagner (bwagner@digprod.com)
Thu, 8 May 1997 15:50:26 -0400

I offer an opinion as an outside observer. As Gail suggests, the HRMIB
hrPrinterDetectedErrorState is a bit map that allows the two
conditions, toner low and off-line to be flagged. Off-line is the
condition that prompts the hrDeviceStatus = down. When the user puts
the device on-line, low toner remains, but device status is no longer
down.

This reflects what is happening very well. I don't see why we want to
monkey with it.

My own feeling is that, in the case where a toner low prompts an off
line, the Alert table should have two alerts; one for low toner and
another for off-line. The idea of a condition that changes from
critical to warning is aesthetically displeasing. I guess you could
have two sequential events..toner low unacknowledged, which was
critical and toner low acknowledged which was a warning (and which
terminated the former). But I think we are making things more
complicated than necessary.

Bill Wagner, Osicom/DPI

______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________
Subject: Re: PMP> Top 25 minus 4 conditions/alerts proposal
Author: "Gail Songer" <Gail.Songer@eng.efi.com> at Internet
Date: 5/8/97 11:25 AM

Jay,

On May 8, 1:49pm, JK Martin wrote:
> Subject: Re: PMP> Top 25 minus 4 conditions/alerts proposal
> Gail,
>
> I certainly suggested that if the HR MIB model for printers ends up
> conflicting with what we believe is the *right* model for handling
> certain conditions, then yes, we should consider "deprecating" our
> association with the HR MIB status variables.
>
> However, if you agree that the values I proposed for the HR MIB variables
> (below) are correct, then for the "critical toner low" condition, there
> is no conflict. Again, assuming the values I proposed are correct.

I am a bit confused here. The definition that you have proposed:

> >
> > hrDeviceStatus down(5)
> > hrPrinterStatus other(1)
> > hrPrinterDetectedErrorState lowToner(1)
> >

is in conflict the host resources mib. "lowToner" forces hrDeviceStatus to
"warning" not "down". One way to avoid conflict is to add "offline" to
hrPrinterDetectedErrorState since "offline" requires "down" in hrDeviceStatus.
This, unfortunatly, brings us back to the alert table. I suppose that having
a toner low critical, that would change to a warning when the printer continues
would work and still keep everything consistent.

>
> Someone had previously illustrated a scenario in which the Alert Table
> entry would be in conflict with the previously published set of related
> HR MIB values. What was that scenario?
>
> ...jay
>