PMP Mail Archive: PMP> RE: FIN> finisher mib integration

PMP Mail Archive: PMP> RE: FIN> finisher mib integration

PMP> RE: FIN> finisher mib integration into up3i

From: Wijnen, Bert (Bert) (bwijnen@lucent.com)
Date: Tue Jun 07 2005 - 05:08:42 EDT

  • Next message: McDonald, Ira: "PMP> FW: Design Reqs for Port MIB"

    Inline

    > -----Original Message-----
    > From: fin-owner@pwg.org [mailto:fin-owner@pwg.org]On Behalf Of Hirn,
    > Andreas
    > Sent: Tuesday, June 07, 2005 10:44
    > To: 'Harry Lewis'; 'McDonald, Ira'
    > Cc: Hirn, Andreas; 'fin@pwg.org'; 'pmp@pwg.org';
    > 'rbergma@hitachi-hkis.com'; 'technic@up3i.org'
    > Subject: FIN> finisher mib integration into up3i
    >
    >
    > Hi Harry and Ira,
    >
    > here another question concerning finisher mib integration into up3i.
    >
    >
    > Last time we decided, that finishing devices have to act as stand alone
    > devices. This means that they have to implement the printer mib additionally
    > to the finishing mib.
    >
    >
    > The problem now is: The printer mib has mandatory tables which are not
    > present in some finishing devices. What should we do with
    > these tables.
    >

    You can (even in a separate document) define an additional MODULE-COMPLIANCE
    statement (for example name it : prtMIBFinisherDeviceCompliance) and in that
    statement you only list the groups that make sense for such a device.
    A matter of getting consensus on in your wg. Finisher devices can then
    claim the new compliance instead of the prMIB or prtMIB2 compliance that
    they cannot achieve.

    Hope this helps,
    Bert
    >
    > In the moment we think that the tables prtGeneralGroup,
    > prtMediaPathGroup,prtConsoleGroup, prtAlertTableGroup have to
    > be present in
    > every finishing device.
    >
    > But not all finishers have the tables prtInputGroup, prtOutputGroup,
    > prtMarkerGroup, prtChannelGroup, prtInterpreterGroup.
    >
    > We have some ideas what to do with these printer mib tables,
    > which are not
    > present in the finishing devices, but they all have some
    > disadvantages:
    >
    > 1.) The tables can be leaved out.
    > Disadvantage: Maybe not complient to the mib rules.
    > 2.) A kind of dummy implementation could be provided.
    > Disadvantage: Its not clear which values have to be used
    > as dummies.
    >
    > What do you think about the problem. Is there a good solution?
    >
    > Best regards,
    > Andreas Hirn
    >
    > _____________________________________
    >
    > Andreas Hirn
    > Software Development
    >
    > OcÚ Printing Systems GmbH
    > Siemensallee 2
    > 85586 Poing, Germany
    > Direct Dial +49-8121-72 4029
    > Direct Fax +49-8121-72 31 73
    > mailto: Andreas.Hirn@ops.de
    > www.oce.com
    >



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Jun 07 2005 - 05:10:17 EDT