PMP Mail Archive: PMP> MFP Alerts Meeting Minutes, February 19, 2007; Maui

PMP> MFP Alerts Meeting Minutes, February 19, 2007; Maui

From: Ron.Bergman@ricoh-usa.com
Date: Wed Feb 28 2007 - 16:34:47 EST

  • Next message: McDonald, Ira: "RE: PMP> [Service to Subunit mapping] MFP Alerts Meeting Minutes, February 19, 2007; Maui"

    The slides outlining the points for discussion can be found at:

      ftp://ftp.pwg.org/pub/pwg/pmp/presentations/MFPAlertsMeeting-20070219.pdf

    The primary topic of discussion was in regard to subunits that are used by
    more than one service. (Example, paper input trays may be used by the
    print, copy, and fax-in services.) The question poised was "how can an
    application determine which services are affected?" After a short
    discussion, it was agreed that the proposed alert table index groupings in
    Appendix A could not properly provide this information in all cases. A
    better method would be to define a new service status mechanism as a new
    working group project. It was also agreed to add a short note to Appendix
    A explaining this decision and to indicate this method was not recommended
    for use by the working group.

    I have drafted the following text to be inserted at the beginning of
    Appendix A. If there are no comments received, I will issue the revised
    document next week.

    Working Group analysis and cautions regarding this method.

    The following proposal was discussed extensively within the working group
    and several scenarios were presented that could not be resolved in a
    reasonable manner using the described method. The basic issue relates to
    the fact that the alert table is hardware centric and not service oriented.
    To adequately present the effect of an alert condition on all services
    would, in many cases, require multiple entries in the table for a single
    alert condition. The working group agreed that this is not a desired
    approach and will investigate alternate approaches to provide service
    status information as a follow-on project. The alert table information
    should be used only to obtain hardware status.

    The original text of the proposal follows. NOT RECOMMENDED…

    Ron Bergman
    Chairman, Printer MIBs Working Group



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Wed Feb 28 2007 - 16:34:43 EST