attachment-0001

How is a continuous forms device supposed to convert from feet to impressions? This does not sound feasible. This would imply shared knowledge, on a job basis, between the mechanism and the RIP. I think this is unlikely. Especially, during NPRO or forms alignment, it would likely become a totally arbitrary choice. ---------------------------------------------- Harry Lewis IBM STSM Chairman - IEEE-ISTO Printer Working Group http://www.pwg.org IBM Printing Systems http://www.ibm.com/printers 303-924-5337 ---------------------------------------------- <table width=100%> <tr valign=top> <td width=40%>"Zehler, Peter" <Peter.Zehler@xeroxlabs.com> Sent by: pmp-owner@pwg.org 07/25/2005 06:31 AM <td width=59%> <table width=100%> <tr valign=top> <td> <div align=right>To</div> <td>"McDonald, Ira" <imcdonald@sharplabs.com>, "Silver, Thomas" <Thomas.Silver@xerox.com>, Harry Lewis/Boulder/IBM@IBMUS, <ron.bergman@hitachi-ps.us.com>, <pmp@pwg.org> <tr valign=top> <td> <div align=right>cc</div> <td> <tr valign=top> <td> <div align=right>Subject</div> <td>PMP> RE: Need clarification on the definition of RFC 3805 'prtMarkerLifeCount' object</table> <table> <tr valign=top> <td> <td></table> </table> <tt>Ira, Although both behaviors are historically correct I believe the object is supposed to represent the total number of units that degrade the life of the imaging module.  It is this definition that is embraced very specifically by the "PWG Imaging System Counters Specification".  As you know the total impressions explicitly includes blank impressions as well as full color, highlight color and mono color impressions.  The counter spec has standardized on the unit impression for marking at the service level.  It is an implementation specific decision on how to map device specific measurements of distance (e.g. feet), time (e.g. hours) or characters to impression. Pete Peter Zehler XEROX Xerox Innovation Group Email: Peter.Zehler@XeroxLabs.com Voice:    (585) 265-8755 FAX:      (585) 265-7441 US Mail: Peter Zehler Xerox Corp.        800 Phillips Rd.        M/S 128-25E Webster NY, 14580-9701 -----Original Message----- From: McDonald, Ira [mailto:imcdonald@sharplabs.com] Sent: Sunday, July 24, 2005 12:23 PM To: Silver, Thomas; McDonald, Ira; harryl@us.ibm.com; ron.bergman@hitachi-ps.us.com; Zehler, Peter; 'pmp@pwg.org' Subject: RE: Need clarification on the definition of RFC 3805 'prtMarkerLifeCount' object Hi Tom, Sorry I missed this the first time around.  Wasn't sent to PMP mailing list, so it got killed by spam filters. The answer to your question is that both behaviors by duplex printers on a single page job are historically correct (increment by one or increment by two).  But your question only makes sense if the PrtMarkerCounterUnitTC chosen unit is 'impressions(7)'. The principal use of PrtMarkerLifeCount is to record use of the marker physical path.  A duplex but blank back side _probably_ still went through the duplex path and caused wear on rollers, etc. There is new guidance here.  In the PWG Imaging System Counters spec (completed last call and soon to be formally approved), a 'blank impression' MUST be counted in an overall 'Impressions' counter (and also in the separate 'BlankImpressions' counter). Therefore, the best practice for prtMarkerLifeCount using impressions would now be to increment by TWO (not intuitive, I know). Pete Zehler - please put in your two cents here, since it's a question from Xerox - thanks. Cheers, - Ira Ira McDonald (Musician / Software Architect) Blue Roof Music / High North Inc PO Box 221  Grand Marais, MI  49839 phone: +1-906-494-2434 email: imcdonald@sharplabs.com > -----Original Message----- > From: Silver, Thomas [mailto:Thomas.Silver@xerox.com] > Sent: Sunday, July 24, 2005 8:38 AM > To: imcdonald@sharplabs.com; harryl@us.ibm.com; > ron.bergman@hitachi-ps.us.com > Subject: RE: Need clarification on the definition of RFC 3805 > 'prtMarkerLifeCount' object > > > Would you folks kindly respond to this issue please? > Thanks, > Tom > > -----Original Message----- > From: Thomas Silver [mailto:tsilver@rochester.rr.com] > Sent: Friday, July 15, 2005 7:52 AM > To: imcdonald@sharplabs.com; harryl@us.ibm.com; > ron.bergman@hitachi-ps.us.com > Cc: Silver, Thomas > Subject: Need clarification on the definition of RFC 3805 > 'prtMarkerLifeCount' object > > Hi folks, > > Would you mind clarifying the definition of the 'prtMarkerLifeCount' > object as defined by RFC 3805 - Printer MIB v2? > > I've spoken w/ some individuals who believe that the > 'prtMarkerLifeCount' > object is supposed to represent the total number of units marked by > the imaging module (i.e. only increment the count by 1 whenever marks > are put on a side of paper when units = impressions). Others believe > that this object is supposed to represent the total number of units > that degrade the life of the imaging module (i.e. blank sheets degrade > the life of a print cartridge even though no marks were made on a side > of paper, assuming units=impressions, and therefore need to be > counted). In other words, on some duplex-enabled printers, if you > submit a single-page document, the 'prtMarkerLifeCount' object will be > incremented by a value of 2 while on other duplex-enabled printers, > the 'prtMarkerLifeCount' object will be incremented by a value of 1. > Which is correct? > > Thanks in advance for the clarification, > > Tom :-) > > System Engineer > CWW/XDM/MMC Console Development > XGS\GD&D\GD\SE&PM > thomas.silver@usa.xerox.com > 8*222-7219/585-422-7219 > </tt>