This sounds reasonable to me.
Lee
-----Original Message-----
From: Michael Sweet [mailto:msweet at apple.com]
Sent: Thursday, November 21, 2013 9:17 AM
To: Hills, Lee D
Cc: ipp at pwg.org; wims at pwg.org
Subject: Re: [IPP] printer-state-reasons Customer Replaceable Unit Missing
Lee,
While we haven't defined keywords for these conditions, I think that is a clear omission that needs to be addressed. The following are my suggested registrations for new "printer-state-reason" keyword values, with a preference to following the RFC 2911 naming for a few:
Attributes (attribute syntax)
Keyword Attribute Value Reference
----------------------- ---------
printer-state-reasons (1setOf type2 keyword) [RFC2911]
cleaner-missing
developer-missing
fuser-missing
marker-ink-missing
marker-print-ribbon-missing
marker-supply-missing
marker-waste-missing
marker-waste-ink-receptacle-missing
marker-waste-toner-receptacle-missing
opc-missing
toner-missing
For completeness we should also register PrtAlertCodeTC values to cover all of the RFC 2911 and new keywords above:
-- Marker Supplies group
markerCleanerMissing(1116), #### CAUTION, PRELIMINARY VALUES NOT REGISTERED
markerDeveloperMissing(1117),
markerFuserMissing(1118),
markerInkMissing(1119),
markerOpcMissing(1120),
markerPrintRibbonMissing(1121),
markerSupplyAlmostEmpty(1122),
markerSupplyEmpty(1123),
markerSupplyMissing(1124),
markerWasteAlmostFull(1125),
markerWasteFull(1126),
markerWasteMissing(1127),
markerWasteInkReceptacleMissing(1128),
markerWasteTonerReceptacleMissing(1129),
Note: it appears that PWG 5100.9 defined a few keywords with duplicate semantics for existing 2911 keywords; I think we should deprecate them as part of an errata for 5100.9 (which can correct the table errors):
RFC 2911 PWG 5100.9
-------------------------------------- ---------------------------------
developer-low marker-developer-almost-empty
developer-empty marker-developer-empty
media-needed input-manual-input-request
Thoughts?