Hi Lee,
During Monday's PWG IPP call, we agreed to accept your proposed updates
for missing CRUs (as further clarified by Mike Sweet) - these should be
applied
to IPP printer-state-reasons and PrtAlertCodeTC. Mike and I have action
items
to get these registered with IANA for IPP and Printer MIB.
Thanks very much for this good catch!
Cheers,
- Ira (co-chair of IPP WG)
Ira McDonald (Musician / Software Architect)
Co-Chair - TCG Trusted Mobility Solutions WG
Chair - Linux Foundation Open Printing WG
Secretary - IEEE-ISTO Printer Working Group
Co-Chair - IEEE-ISTO PWG Internet Printing Protocol WG
IETF Designated Expert - IPP & Printer MIB
Blue Roof Music / High North Inc
http://sites.google.com/site/blueroofmusichttp://sites.google.com/site/highnorthinc
mailto: blueroofmusic at gmail.com
Winter 579 Park Place Saline, MI 48176 734-944-0094
Summer PO Box 221 Grand Marais, MI 49839 906-494-2434
On Thu, Nov 21, 2013 at 12:21 PM, Hills, Lee D <Lee.Hills at xerox.com> wrote:
> 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?
>>> _______________________________________________
> ipp mailing list
>ipp at pwg.org>https://www.pwg.org/mailman/listinfo/ipp>-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.pwg.org/pipermail/ipp/attachments/20131204/a476e3f6/attachment.html>