PMP Mail Archive: Re: PMP> Corrections to Printer MIB draft 2

PMP Mail Archive: Re: PMP> Corrections to Printer MIB draft 2

Re: PMP> Corrections to Printer MIB draft 2

Randy Turner (rturner@sharplabs.com)
Fri, 06 Jun 1997 10:08:29 -0700

Concerning the issues below:

As far as wording goes, I took some editorial license with regards to
#5. Unless someone
has a problem the way it is worded now, IMHO it should suffice. As I
mentioned in my
earlier mail message, I am reviewing issue #4 and so far it looks ok.

I will address items #1, #2, and #3 hopefully by Monday or Tuesday. I
will submit a new
draft on Tuesday.

I have already addressed issue #6 on your list.

Randy

lpyoung@lexmark.com wrote:

> (Embedded image moved to file: PIC25137.PCX)
>
> To: pmp@pwg.org
> cc:
> From: Lloyd Young
> Date: 06/06/97 08:40:09 AM
> Subject: Corrections to Printer MIB draft 2
>
> Randy,
>
> There are 6 changes that need to be made in the latest draft.
> Five of the changes were items that were not included from
> my final changes list and 1 change is as a result of one of
> the changes that did get made.
>
> 1. Top 21 Printer Conditions
> In an attempt to standardize some of the alert conditions,
> Chuck Adams developed (with many inputs) a list of common
> printer conditions (alerts included) that was supposed to
> be incorporated in a new appendix of the MIB. This new
> appendix is at the following location:
> ftp://ftp.pwg.org/pub/pwg/pmp/contributions/err4.doc
>
> 2. Bob Pentecost raised an issue in e-mail dated 4/17/97
> on prtAlertTime. According to my notes, you were going to
> propose new wording for prtAlertTime to handle Bob's issue.
> There are no changes in this area of the new MIB.
>
> 3. Harry Lewis raised an issue in e-mail dated 4/18/97
> on Alert Alert. According to my notes, you were going to
> propose new wording for alertRemovalOfBinaryChangeEntry
> to handle Harry's issue. There are no changes in the
> area of the new MIB.
>
> 4. You were going to review Ira McDonald's proposal on
> localization and make a recommendation. Chris and I have
> taken a look at this one and I'll post a proposal for
> this one.
>
> 5. Jay Martin proposed a change on 4/30/97 in some e-mail
> that did not make it into the new draft. I'll copy the
> proposed changes here:
> Section 2.2.12.2.2 Sub-unit Status
> The subsection of "On-line" has "Intended" twice.
> The subsection of "Transitioning" has the line "At intended
> state";
> this should change to "At current state". The succeeding line
> says "Transitioning to intended state", but this might be ok as
> is.
> The MIB section defining "PrtSubUnitStatusTC"
> Exactly the same edits as above.
>
> 6. The new section that Ron Bergman wrote on Interface Types is
> currently Section 3.5. I think the document would flow better
> if it was Section 3.3.1. If it were moved, it would immediately
> fall after the write-up on RFC 1213.
>
> Regards,
> Lloyd
>
> Lloyd Young Lexmark International, Inc.
> Senior Program Manager Dept. C14L/Bldg. 035-3
> Strategic Alliances 740 New Circle Road NW
> internet: lpyoung@lexmark.com Lexington, KY 40550
> Phone: (606) 232-5150 Fax: (606) 232-6740
>
>
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
>