PMP Mail Archive: Re: PMP> Unavailable vs. Broken - review by April 17th

PMP Mail Archive: Re: PMP> Unavailable vs. Broken - review by April 17th

Re: PMP> Unavailable vs. Broken - review by April 17th

Tom Hastings (
Thu, 16 Apr 1998 17:12:20 PDT

Here is a further suggestion on the broken bit from a Xerox participant:

I support the recommended change of not SETTING the 'broken'
bit whenever the device 'knows' that the condition to be resolved
depends ONLY upon 'normal human intervention...' and NOT in
need of 'extraordinary (service) intervention...'. In other words, I
recommend that the 'broken' bit(s) remain, but by definition that
they are only SET when the device 'knows' (because of its
intrinsic error handling capabilities) that 'something beyond
normal human intervention...' is required to resolve the problem
(eg: service rep, key operator, etc). The 'broken' bit therefore
acts as a simple indicator of problem 'severity'.

I think this fits in with HP's approach as well, since they set the
broken bit for "Marker Supply Missing" which may be a more serious kind
of condition and require a more skilled person to fix.


At 09:06 04/16/1998 PDT, Matt Young wrote:
>The current HP code returns "Unavailable and OnRequest" for all the
>listed alerts except "Marker Supply Missing", which returns "Unavailable
>because Broken".
>I searched for a definition of what these status values are supposed to
>mean and was not able to find any. It certainly appears to make more
>sense to return "OnRequest" because there are very few cases (at least
>for HP printers) where these alerts are caused by errors that require
>some type of repair.
>Harry Lewis wrote:
>> The "Top-25" alert definitions specify subUnitStatus "Unavailable because
>> Broken" for
>> Jam
>> Cover/Door Open
>> Input Tray Missing
>> Output Tray Missing
>> Output Tray Full
>> Marker Supply Missing
>> Marker Supply Empty
>> During the PMP last call, Tom Hastings wrote
>> >We were wondering why we didn't use "Unavailable and OnRequest"
>> >...for something that requires human attention, but is not broken?
>> While we do not want to entirely resurface this discussion, we are giving
>> everyone until 4/17 to review their interpretations or implementations
of the
>> Top-25 to see if there is major misunderstanding.
>> Please review with your product development teams and reply before
Friday, 4/17.
>> Harry Lewis - IBM Printing Systems
>Matt Young
>( Hewlett-Packard Department LaserJet Division