The updated Printer MIB includes many additions to support the Finisher
MIB in prtMarkerSuppliesTypeTC. The curent text is:
PrtMarkerSuppliesTypeTC ::= TEXTUAL-CONVENTION
-- This value is a type 3 enumeration
STATUS current
DESCRIPTION
"The type of this supply."
SYNTAX INTEGER {
other(1),
unknown(2),
toner(3),
wasteToner(4),
ink(5),
inkCartridge(6),
inkRibbon(7),
wasteInk(8),
opc(9), -- photo conductor
developer(10),
fuserOil(11),
solidWax(12),
ribbonWax(13),
wasteWax(14),
fuser(15),
coronaWire(16),
fuserOilWick(17),
cleanerUnit(18),
fuserCleaningPad(19),
transferUnit(20),
tonerCartridge(21),
fuserOiler(22),
-- Values for Finisher MIB
water(23),
wasteWater(24),
glueWaterAdditive(25),
wastePaper(26),
bindingSupply(27),
bandingSupply(28),
stitchingWire(29),
shrinkWrap(30),
paperWrap(31),
staples(32),
inserts(33),
covers(34)
-- End of values for Finisher MIB
}
This should satisfy your request. Note that these values are approved and
can be legally used with the publication of a new MIB.
Ron Bergman
Dataproducts Corp.
On Thu, 8 Oct 1998, Henerlau, Paul wrote:
>
> Ron, Lloyd, Randy, et al -
>
> Thank you for addressing the question of the
> PrtMarkerSuppliesSupplyUnitTC, as it relates to
> the Finishing MIB.
>
> My assessment is that this will address the immediate
> concern of characterizing the number of units of a finisher
> which provides stapling capabilities.
>
> There is still a secondary concern for stapling finishers,
> however, and that is the actual PrtMarkerSuppliesTypeTC.
>
> The version of the Printer MIB from which I am working
> makes no mention of staples in the PrtMarkerSuppliesTypeTC.
> There is a definition for other(1), which is what we are currently
> obliged to use.
>
> A bit of archeological research indicates that in an earlier
> version of the Finishing MIB there was some thought of
> creating a FinSupplyTypeTC as an extension of PrtMarkerSuppliesTypeTC
> which would contain such things as water(23), bandingTape(28),
> stitchingWire(29), and of particular interest to us, staples(32).
>
> Perhaps these changes have already been addressed in
> a later version of the Printer MIB; if not, I suggest that some
> consideration be given to the additional burden placed upon
> the PrtMarkerSuppliesTypeTC in the support of Finishing
> units.
>
> Thank you for giving this your attention; please contact me if you
> have any questions or comments...
>
> -- Paul Henerlau
>
> [henerlau@sharplabs.com]