attachment

<html xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:x="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:excel" xmlns:st1="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40"> <head> <meta http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=us-ascii"> <meta name=Generator content="Microsoft Word 11 (filtered medium)"> <o:SmartTagType namespaceuri="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" name="PostalCode"/> <o:SmartTagType namespaceuri="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" name="State"/> <o:SmartTagType namespaceuri="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" name="Street"/> <o:SmartTagType namespaceuri="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" name="address"/> <o:SmartTagType namespaceuri="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" name="City"/> <o:SmartTagType namespaceuri="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" name="place"/> <o:SmartTagType namespaceuri="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" name="PersonName"/>  <style>  </style>  </head> <body lang=EN-US link=blue vlink=blue> <div class=Section1> Hi Ron,<o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> Your description of the indexing is appropriate; however, there is still no mention of prtAlertGroupIndex which is the same as the index of prtInput, prtChannel, etc. but in the Alert, prtAlertGroupIndex is what allows the management app to identify which function the alert is relating to. I think completely leaving prtAlertGroupIndex out of this text is a mistake.<o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> I am also concerned about this sentence: The index position to be used is the least significant index, not the position occupied by hrDeviceID.<o:p></o:p> I think hrDeviceID should not be introduced here without further clarification. We discussed the use of hrDeviceID as an alternative method for distinguishing the function, but it does not relate to the use of the index position at all, so I think this is just confusing. If we mention hrDeviceID, it should be a separate paragraph saying why using the hrDeviceID for the scan function is not an acceptable alternative for determining the function that an alert is related to. It is not clear to me what “The index position to be used is the least significant index,” is trying to convey. Are you saying that for a prtChannel relating to the fax, the index should start with 24576 rather than say 25000? Is this necessary to state?<o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> prtCovers should be prtCover.<o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> Thanks,<o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> Stuart<o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> <st1:PersonName w:st="on">Stuart Rowley</st1:PersonName><o:p></o:p> Network Product Mgr.<o:p></o:p> Kyocera Technology Development<o:p></o:p> <st1:Street w:st="on"><st1:address w:st="on">1855 Gateway Blvd. #400</st1:address></st1:Street><o:p></o:p> <st1:place w:st="on"><st1:City w:st="on">Concord</st1:City>, <st1:State w:st="on">CA</st1:State> <st1:PostalCode w:st="on">94520</st1:PostalCode></st1:place><o:p></o:p> <a href="mailto:stuart.rowley@ktd-kyocera.com">stuart.rowley@ktd-kyocera.com</a><o:p></o:p> V: 925.849.3306<o:p></o:p> F: 925.849.3399<o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> <o:p> </o:p> <o:p> </o:p> <div> <div class=MsoNormal align=center style='text-align:center'> <hr size=2 width="100%" align=center tabindex=-1> </div> From: Bergman, Ron [mailto:Ron.Bergman@rpsa.ricoh.com] Sent: Thursday, November 02, 2006 4:05 PM To: <st1:PersonName w:st="on">Stuart Rowley</st1:PersonName> Subject: RE: PMP> Indexing option for prtAlertGroupIndex to identify function<o:p></o:p> </div> <o:p> </o:p> Hi Stuart,<o:p></o:p>  <o:p></o:p> I made some modifications to your text.  I thing there is still a misunderstanding regarding the index this grouping applies to.  Review this part carefully.<o:p></o:p>  <o:p></o:p> <h1 style='mso-margin-top-alt:12.0pt;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:3.0pt; margin-left:0in'>11  Appendix A   Suggested Indexing Method  (Informative)<o:p></o:p></h1> For the MFD subunits that are represented in the common alert groups of prtMediaPath, prtInput, prtChannel, prtConsole, prtCovers, systemGeneralTransformer, systemGeneralOutputChannel, and systemGeneralSupply, there may be no information to indicate the MFD function associated with the alert.<o:p></o:p> To allow an application implementation to easily determine the functional device that is associated with an alert, it is recommended that table index groups be assigned to each device.  The index position to be used is the least significant index, not the position occupied by hrDeviceID.  For example, in the prtMediaPath group, this applies to prtMediaPathIndex.   Although the exact grouping may be implementation dependent, the following grouping is strongly suggested to provide interoperability between MFDs and management applications.<o:p></o:p> It is recommended all MFDs assign table index values from 1 to 16383 (0x0001 to 0x3FFF) to the printer, the values from 20480 to 24575 (0x5000 to 0x5FFF) are to be assigned to the scan device and the values from 24576 to 28671 (0x6000 to 0x6FFF) are to be assigned to the fax device.<o:p></o:p> <div>  <o:p></o:p> </div> <div> Let me know if you agree.<o:p></o:p> </div> <div>  <o:p></o:p> </div> <div>     Ron<o:p></o:p> </div> <div>  <o:p></o:p> </div> <div> <o:p> </o:p> </div> <div class=MsoNormal align=center style='text-align:center'> <hr size=2 width="100%" align=center tabIndex=-1> </div> From: <st1:PersonName w:st="on">Stuart Rowley</st1:PersonName> [mailto:Stuart.Rowley@ktd-kyocera.com] Sent: Wednesday, November 01, 2006 12:02 PM To: Bergman, Ron Subject: RE: PMP> Indexing option for prtAlertGroupIndex to identify function<o:p></o:p> Ron,<o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> I remember Ira saying recommended was too strong, but I kind of don’t get that. This is in a never never land of not being normative, but on the other hand if everyone uses different ranges, then management apps make wrong assumptions. The only reason not to use recommended in my opinion is due to a special meaning of recommended in “standards-ese”. <o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> Thanks,<o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> Stuart<o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> <o:p> </o:p> <div> <div class=MsoNormal align=center style='text-align:center'> <hr size=2 width="100%" align=center tabIndex=-1> </div> From: Bergman, Ron [mailto:Ron.Bergman@rpsa.ricoh.com] Sent: Wednesday, November 01, 2006 11:56 AM To: <st1:PersonName w:st="on">Stuart Rowley</st1:PersonName> Subject: RE: PMP> Indexing option for prtAlertGroupIndex to identify function<o:p></o:p> </div> <o:p> </o:p> Thanks Stuart, looks good.  I hope to be able to get back to this later in the week.<o:p></o:p>  <o:p></o:p> You probably missed some of the discussion, Ira indicated that "recommended" was too strong (?) and indicated a requirement.  We agreed to use "suggested" instead.  Whatever...<o:p></o:p>  <o:p></o:p> Too bad you missed the meeting with Ira actually present.  He is an interesting character.<o:p></o:p>  <o:p></o:p>     Regards,<o:p></o:p>     Ron<o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> <div class=MsoNormal align=center style='text-align:center'> <hr size=2 width="100%" align=center tabIndex=-1> </div> From: <st1:PersonName w:st="on">Stuart Rowley</st1:PersonName> [mailto:Stuart.Rowley@ktd-kyocera.com] Sent: Tuesday, October 31, 2006 12:00 PM To: pmp@pwg.org Cc: Bergman, Ron Subject: PMP> Indexing option for prtAlertGroupIndex to identify function<o:p></o:p> Ron,<o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> I took a stab at new text for section 7 Recommended Indexing Method.<o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> Ira suggested that it should not be normative and should therefore be in an appendix. I wasn’t sure how to handle whether the ranges are recommended or just an example. If there is no explicit agreement on the ranges, then a management app has no idea of the special meaning of the index. Therefore, “recommended” seems appropriate to me. I expanded the ranges because Ira said that some device implementations may bump into the previous range limits.<o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> Appendix (x) - prtAlertGroupIndex Indexing Option<o:p></o:p> The various MFD functions share some common alert groups, such as prtMediaPath, prtInput, prtOutput, prtChannel, prtConsole, prtCover, etc., For alerts in these common alert groups, there may be no information which indicates the MFD function affected by the alert. The recommended method to allow a management application to associate an alert with a specific device function is to assign index ranges to each device function. The following prtAlertGroupIndex index ranges are recommended; index values from 1 to 255 (0x0001 to 0x00FF) may be assigned to the print function, index values from 256 to 511 (0x0100 to 0x01FF) may be assigned to the scan function, and index values from 512 to 767 (0x0200 to 0x02FF) may be assigned to the fax function. Note that this method does not indicate when a common group alert affects multiple device functions. For example, an open cover may affect the print, fax, and scan functions, but only one prtAlertGroupIndex is used. <o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> For the alert groups that are specific to one MFD function, such as faxDeviceGeneral or scanDeviceScanner, prtAlertGroupIndex indices may be assigned normally, i.e starting at index 1.<o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> Best regards,<o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> Stuart<o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> <st1:PersonName w:st="on">Stuart Rowley</st1:PersonName><o:p></o:p> Network Product Mgr.<o:p></o:p> Kyocera Technology Development<o:p></o:p> <st1:Street w:st="on"><st1:address w:st="on">1855 Gateway Blvd. #400</st1:address></st1:Street><o:p></o:p> <st1:place w:st="on"><st1:City w:st="on">Concord</st1:City>, <st1:State w:st="on">CA</st1:State> <st1:PostalCode w:st="on">94520</st1:PostalCode></st1:place><o:p></o:p> <a href="mailto:stuart.rowley@ktd-kyocera.com">stuart.rowley@ktd-kyocera.com</a><o:p></o:p> V: 925.849.3306<o:p></o:p> F: 925.849.3399<o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> <o:p> </o:p> </div> </body> </html>