PMP Mail Archive: Re: PMP> Another hrBit

PMP Mail Archive: Re: PMP> Another hrBit

Re: PMP> Another hrBit

Harry Lewis (harryl@us.ibm.com)
Fri, 12 Dec 1997 19:02:14 -0500

Good question. We have states... like "warming up", "down", etc. Then, =
one
interpretation, is that we have "bits" that can indicate "sub-states" t=
hat
pertain specifically to error conditions. An overdue PM falls into thi=
s
category A bit is perfect - better than a warning alert which is manage=
d out of
the table. I don't think frequency of occurrence was ever a criteria fo=
r adding
bits. I guess you are asking what are the criteria? I guess I don't kno=
w. How
about... someone asked for one, the group reviewed it and there wasn't =
a major
good reason not to? ;-) It's not like there's either a major shortage o=
f bits
or an overwhelming onrush of requests.. is there?

Harry Lewis - IBM Printing Systems

pmp-owner@pwg.org on 12/12/97 04:12:13 AM
Please respond to pmp-owner@pwg.org @ internet
To: pmp@pwg.org @ internet
cc:
Subject: Re: PMP> Another hrBit

What is the justification for adding new bits to the
prtDetectedErrorState HR MIB byte? It appears to me that
we are going overboard in assigning new bits to less than
frequent error conditions.
Lloyd Young
=