PMP Mail Archive: RE: PMP> Printer MIB - MARKER ISSUE

PMP Mail Archive: RE: PMP> Printer MIB - MARKER ISSUE


Harry Lewis (
Thu, 3 Jul 1997 15:20:20 -0400

I haven't done my homework and read ALL the flows on this topic, but, picking
up here... where Bob P. writes...

>When I first read about using the generic Alert Codes, I was concerned with
>being able to report the failure with enough detail in a device that has
>multiple parts that could be over/under temperature. I thought that
>prtAlertGroup would indicate Marker and the AlertGroupIndex could only point to
>the single marker. Then I was talking to Lloyd and it looks like the following
>would be more appropriate.

>If you go with the generic subunit error reporting, then you must add
>printHead(23) to the PrtMarkerSuppliesTypeTC list. This assumes that you
>consider the print head to be a marker supply. This will allow the failure to
>reported with the following:

> prtAlertGroup = markerSupplies(11)
> prtAlertGroupIndex = value for the print head
> prtAlertCode = subunitUnderTemperature(tbd) or subunitOverTemperature(tbd)

>Any thoughts?

I'd like to inject the following...

There is really no limit to the definition of what we call a supply.
Considering product
packaging, indeed, a print head or inkjet nozzle apparatus may well be
considered a
supply. But, typically, we have enumerated supplies so we can gauge their max.
and remaining
capacities. Supplies events would typically relate to this... not overheating.

The generic alert codes stemmed from a PWG sentiment catalyzed by me asking for
a few
simple additions to the (then) current list... that additions would be out of
The fear has never been realized, yet, having implemented and shipped the
enums, I would not like to see them down-played at this point.

Thus, the answer to all this lies in the LOC, which exists precisely to cover
concern Bob expresses...

>I was concerned with being able to report the failure with enough detail in a
>that has multiple parts...

We recognize that there will be MANY different engine designs and some events
will only
make sense, on a detailed level, to the management app which has intimate
of that engine. So, to state a live example from one of out printers, the event
Drive Turning too Slowly" (REALLY !)... is a subUnitUnrecoverableStorageError
(32) in
the Storage Group (3) with some vendor specific LOC (say 14).

I would say we should add subUnitOverTemp and subUnitUnderTemp. Then...

"PrintHeadOverTemp" falls into this category of error (albeit not QUITE as
Depending on the technology, some printers won't have a print head, or at least
for which the temperature can be detected. But those which do can use the
alert on the Marker accompanied by a LOC for more precision. Let's face it. One
printer may just know the print head is overtemp but another may know it's
but still operational, overtemp and shutting down and overtemp and melted. Three
LOCs for this guy.

This will undoubtedly illicit the response... 'but how can we ever standardize
if you
are recommending LOCs?'. I think you only standardize to a level... the marker
overheated. If you know more about the engine then you can give more specifics,
that implies non-standard (engine specific).

Hope I've made some sense.

Harry Lewis.