Subject: Re: PMP> Top 25 minus 4 conditions/alerts proposal

From: Lloyd Young <[email-masked]>
Date: 8 May 97 0:49:07 EDT

Anyone disagree with adding the proposed text in Jay's note?
Lloyd

--------------------- Forwarded message ------------------
To: Lloyd Young
cc: pmp%pwg.org @ interlock.lexmark.com @ SMTP 
From: jkm%underscore.com @ interlock.lexmark.com (JK Martin) @ SMTP
Date: 05/07/97 01:54:56 PM
Subject: Re: PMP> Top 25 minus 4 conditions/alerts proposal

Lloyd,

When you say (below) that "no changes to the Printer MIB are required",
we can assume you mean the actual MIB definition and not the draft text
surrounding that definition, right?

I agree that the *MIB* should not change, but certainly the text of the
I-D (that becomes the RFC) should be modified to include a simple, yet
concise statement about critical alerts (paraphrasing your proposed
text):

    Any condition for which the printer stops operation should result
    in the addition of an alert in the Alert Table; such an alert must
    have its prtAlertSeverityLevel variable assigned with the value
    critical(3).

I would suggest that this text should go into the I-D/RFC text at the
very least.  If we also want to put it in Gail's FAQ, then great.

 ...jay

---

From: "Gail Songer" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 8 May 1997 10:11:14 -0700

So,  I have been trying to keep up with this, but I may have missed the answer:

What did we decide to do with hrPrinterDetectedErrorState?  What should be set
in this variable in this condition?

Sometime ago we discussed removing the association between
hrPrinterDetectedErrorState and hrDeviceStatus.  Are we reversing that
decision?

Gail

On May 8, 12:49am, Lloyd Young wrote:
>-- End of excerpt from Lloyd Young