attachment-0001
<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=us-ascii">
<META content="MSHTML 6.00.2900.2668" name=GENERATOR></HEAD>
<BODY>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><SPAN class=693312311-27072005><FONT face=Arial
color=#0000ff size=2>Harry,</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><SPAN class=693312311-27072005><FONT face=Arial
color=#0000ff size=2></FONT></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><SPAN class=693312311-27072005><FONT face=Arial
color=#0000ff size=2>The device (i.e. PrtMarkerLifeCount) will still count
feet of paper since that is what the device is using when it prints regardless
of the content. The print service, which includes the RIP, counts the
impressions for the job (i.e. datastream). The device
controller would convert feet for run out or forms alignment to impressions in
an implementation specific manner. These impresssions would not be counted
as part of a job stream (i.e. other or perhaps maintenance). And yes I
imagine the conversion would be rather arbitrary but consuming applications can
be made to compensate to keep the customer happy.</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><SPAN class=693312311-27072005><FONT face=Arial
color=#0000ff size=2></FONT></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><SPAN class=693312311-27072005><FONT face=Arial
color=#0000ff size=2>Pete</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV align=left>
<P><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2>Peter Zehler</FONT><FONT face=Arial
color=#0000ff size=2> <BR></FONT><FONT face=XeroxPeopleNet
color=#ff0000>XEROX</FONT><FONT face="Times New Roman"> <BR></FONT><FONT
face=Tahoma color=#000080 size=2>Xerox Innovation Group</FONT><FONT
face="Times New Roman"> <BR></FONT><FONT face=Arial color=#000080 size=2>Email:
Peter.Zehler@XeroxLabs.com</FONT><FONT face="Times New Roman"> <BR></FONT><FONT
face=Arial color=#333399 size=2>Voice: (585)
265-8755</FONT><FONT face=Arial color=#333399> <BR></FONT><FONT face=Arial
color=#333399 size=2>FAX: (585)
265-7441</FONT><FONT face=Arial color=#333399> <BR></FONT><FONT face=Arial
color=#333399 size=2>US Mail: Peter Zehler</FONT><FONT face=Arial
color=#333399><BR></FONT><FONT face=Arial color=#333399 size=2>Xerox
Corp.</FONT><FONT face=Arial color=#333399> <BR></FONT><FONT face=Arial
color=#333399 size=2> 800 Phillips
Rd.</FONT><FONT face=Arial color=#333399> <BR></FONT><FONT face=Arial
color=#333399 size=2> M/S
128-25E</FONT><FONT face=Arial color=#333399> <BR></FONT><FONT face=Arial
color=#333399 size=2>Webster NY, 14580-9701</FONT><FONT face=Arial
color=#333399> </P></FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV><BR>
<DIV class=OutlookMessageHeader lang=en-us dir=ltr align=left>
<HR tabIndex=-1>
<FONT face=Tahoma size=2><B>From:</B> Harry Lewis [mailto:harryl@us.ibm.com]
<BR><B>Sent:</B> Tuesday, July 26, 2005 11:09 PM<BR><B>To:</B> Zehler,
Peter<BR><B>Cc:</B> McDonald, Ira; pmp@pwg.org;
ron.bergman@hitachi-ps.us.com<BR><B>Subject:</B> Re: PMP> RE: Need
clarification on the definition of RFC 3805 'prtMarkerLifeCount'
object<BR></FONT><BR></DIV>
<DIV></DIV><BR><FONT face=sans-serif size=2>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.</FONT> <BR><FONT face=sans-serif
size=2>---------------------------------------------- <BR>Harry Lewis <BR>IBM
STSM<BR>Chairman - IEEE-ISTO Printer Working Group<BR>http://www.pwg.org<BR>IBM
Printing Systems
<BR>http://www.ibm.com/printers<BR>303-924-5337<BR>----------------------------------------------
</FONT><BR><BR><BR>
<TABLE width="100%">
<TBODY>
<TR vAlign=top>
<TD width="40%"><FONT face=sans-serif size=1><B>"Zehler, Peter"
<Peter.Zehler@xeroxlabs.com></B> </FONT><BR><FONT face=sans-serif
size=1>Sent by: pmp-owner@pwg.org</FONT>
<P><FONT face=sans-serif size=1>07/25/2005 06:31 AM</FONT> </P>
<TD width="59%">
<TABLE width="100%">
<TBODY>
<TR vAlign=top>
<TD>
<DIV align=right><FONT face=sans-serif size=1>To</FONT></DIV>
<TD><FONT face=sans-serif size=1>"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></FONT>
<TR vAlign=top>
<TD>
<DIV align=right><FONT face=sans-serif size=1>cc</FONT></DIV>
<TD>
<TR vAlign=top>
<TD>
<DIV align=right><FONT face=sans-serif size=1>Subject</FONT></DIV>
<TD><FONT face=sans-serif size=1>PMP> RE: Need clarification on
the definition of RFC 3805 'prtMarkerLifeCount'
object</FONT></TR></TBODY></TABLE><BR>
<TABLE>
<TBODY>
<TR vAlign=top>
<TD>
<TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE><BR></TR></TBODY></TABLE><BR><BR><BR><TT><FONT
size=2>Ira,<BR><BR>Although both behaviors are historically correct I believe
the object is<BR>supposed to represent the total number of units that degrade
the life of<BR>the imaging module. It is this definition that is embraced
very<BR>specifically by the "PWG Imaging System Counters Specification".
As you<BR>know the total impressions explicitly includes blank impressions
as well<BR>as full color, highlight color and mono color impressions. The
counter<BR>spec has standardized on the unit impression for marking at the
service<BR>level. It is an implementation specific decision on how to map
device<BR>specific measurements of distance (e.g. feet), time (e.g. hours)
or<BR>characters to impression.<BR><BR>Pete<BR><BR><BR><BR>Peter Zehler
<BR>XEROX <BR>Xerox Innovation Group <BR>Email: Peter.Zehler@XeroxLabs.com
<BR>Voice: (585) 265-8755 <BR>FAX: (585)
265-7441 <BR>US Mail: Peter Zehler<BR>Xerox Corp. <BR>
800 Phillips Rd. <BR> M/S 128-25E <BR>Webster
NY, 14580-9701 <BR><BR><BR>-----Original Message-----<BR>From: McDonald, Ira
[mailto:imcdonald@sharplabs.com] <BR>Sent: Sunday, July 24, 2005 12:23 PM<BR>To:
Silver, Thomas; McDonald, Ira;
harryl@us.ibm.com;<BR>ron.bergman@hitachi-ps.us.com; Zehler, Peter;
'pmp@pwg.org'<BR>Subject: RE: Need clarification on the definition of RFC
3805<BR>'prtMarkerLifeCount' object<BR><BR>Hi Tom,<BR><BR>Sorry I missed this
the first time around. Wasn't sent to PMP mailing<BR>list, so it got
killed by spam filters.<BR><BR>The answer to your question is that both
behaviors by duplex printers on<BR>a single page job are historically correct
(increment by one or<BR>increment by two). But your question only makes
sense if the<BR>PrtMarkerCounterUnitTC chosen unit is
'impressions(7)'.<BR><BR>The principal use of PrtMarkerLifeCount is to record
use of the marker<BR>physical path. A duplex but blank back side
_probably_ still went<BR>through the duplex path and caused wear on rollers,
etc.<BR><BR>There is new guidance here. In the PWG Imaging System Counters
spec<BR>(completed last call and soon to be formally approved), a
'blank<BR>impression' MUST be counted in an overall 'Impressions'<BR>counter
(and also in the separate 'BlankImpressions' counter).<BR>Therefore, the best
practice for prtMarkerLifeCount using impressions<BR>would now be to increment
by TWO (not intuitive, I know).<BR><BR>Pete Zehler - please put in your two
cents here, since it's a question<BR>from Xerox - thanks.<BR><BR>Cheers,<BR>-
Ira<BR><BR>Ira McDonald (Musician / Software Architect) Blue Roof Music /
High<BR>North Inc PO Box 221 Grand Marais, MI 49839<BR>phone:
+1-906-494-2434<BR>email: imcdonald@sharplabs.com<BR><BR>> -----Original
Message-----<BR>> From: Silver, Thomas
[mailto:Thomas.Silver@xerox.com]<BR>> Sent: Sunday, July 24, 2005 8:38
AM<BR>> To: imcdonald@sharplabs.com; harryl@us.ibm.com; <BR>>
ron.bergman@hitachi-ps.us.com<BR>> Subject: RE: Need clarification on the
definition of RFC 3805 <BR>> 'prtMarkerLifeCount' object<BR>> <BR>>
<BR>> Would you folks kindly respond to this issue please? <BR>>
Thanks,<BR>> Tom<BR>> <BR>> -----Original Message-----<BR>> From:
Thomas Silver [mailto:tsilver@rochester.rr.com]<BR>> Sent: Friday, July 15,
2005 7:52 AM<BR>> To: imcdonald@sharplabs.com; harryl@us.ibm.com; <BR>>
ron.bergman@hitachi-ps.us.com<BR>> Cc: Silver, Thomas<BR>> Subject: Need
clarification on the definition of RFC 3805 <BR>> 'prtMarkerLifeCount'
object<BR>> <BR>> Hi folks,<BR>> <BR>> Would you mind clarifying the
definition of the 'prtMarkerLifeCount'<BR>> object as defined by RFC 3805 -
Printer MIB v2?<BR>> <BR>> I've spoken w/ some individuals who believe
that the <BR>> 'prtMarkerLifeCount'<BR>> object is supposed to represent
the total number of units marked by <BR>> the imaging module (i.e. only
increment the count by 1 whenever marks <BR>> are put on a side of paper when
units = impressions). Others believe <BR>> that this object is supposed to
represent the total number of units <BR>> that degrade the life of the
imaging module (i.e. blank sheets degrade<BR><BR>> the life of a print
cartridge even though no marks were made on a side<BR><BR>> of paper,
assuming units=impressions, and therefore need to be <BR>> counted). In other
words, on some duplex-enabled printers, if you <BR>> submit a single-page
document, the 'prtMarkerLifeCount' object will be<BR><BR>> incremented by a
value of 2 while on other duplex-enabled printers, <BR>> the
'prtMarkerLifeCount' object will be incremented by a value of 1. <BR>> Which
is correct?<BR>> <BR>> Thanks in advance for the clarification,<BR>>
<BR>> Tom :-)<BR>> <BR>> System Engineer<BR>> CWW/XDM/MMC Console
Development<BR>> XGS\GD&D\GD\SE&PM<BR>>
thomas.silver@usa.xerox.com<BR>> 8*222-7219/585-422-7219<BR>>
<BR><BR></FONT></TT><BR></BODY></HTML>