Hi Steven and Smith,
I sure hope Mike chimes in here...
So a couple of observations:
(1) In the example, with "sheets" as the unit, the finishing device
"stitcher" with
a max capacity of "500" can stitch up to 500 sheets together (at once). The
remaining capacity in this example is meaningless (because this is not an
output
tray, but an intermediate finishing device).
(2) We (the PWG) can't constrain the printer manufacturers at all in their
choice
of capacity unit for a given finishing device - that boat sailed 20 years
ago.
(3) In the case of a finishing device "stitcher", the corresponding
finishing supply
would have to use a meaningful unit, e.g., "tenThousandthsOfInches(3)" for
the
length of the wire spool in the "stitcher". Note that "sheets" would be a
weird and
ambiguous *supply* unit for a "stitcher".
The re-use of "PrtMarkerSuppliesSupplyUnitTC" for "finSupplyEntry" was sadly
brain-dead. Because it's a *non-extensible" enumeration in Printer MIB v2
(RFC
3805), not moved to IANA Printer MIB (as it should have been). By
contrast, the
"FinDeviceTypeTC" is *extensible* and is defined in IANA Finisher MIB.
Mike - over to you.
Cheers,
- Ira
PS - Actually revising either RFC 3805 (Printer MIB) or RFC 3806 (Finisher
MIB)
in the modern IETF standards context is beyond impossible - it would be a
five-year,
political project for Mike and Ira - not going to happen.
*Ira McDonald (Musician / Software Architect)*
*Chair - SAE Trust Anchors and Authentication TF*
*Co-Chair - TCG Trusted Mobility Solutions WG*
*Co-Chair - TCG Metadata Access Protocol SG*
*Chair - Linux Foundation Open Printing WGSecretary - IEEE-ISTO Printer
Working GroupCo-Chair - IEEE-ISTO PWG Internet Printing Protocol WGIETF
Designated Expert - IPP & Printer MIBBlue Roof Music / High North
Inchttp://sites.google.com/site/blueroofmusic
<http://sites.google.com/site/blueroofmusic>http://sites.google.com/site/highnorthinc
<http://sites.google.com/site/highnorthinc>mailto: blueroofmusic at gmail.com
<blueroofmusic at gmail.com>(permanent) PO Box 221 Grand Marais, MI 49839
906-494-2434*
On Thu, Jan 7, 2021 at 4:41 PM Kennedy, Smith (Wireless & IPP Standards) <
smith.kennedy at hp.com> wrote:
> Hi Steven,
>> On Jan 7, 2021, at 12:40 PM, Steven Young via ipp <ipp at pwg.org> wrote:
>> Smith,
>> Happy New Year!
>> I sent the draft to CINC for their review. The following is their
> understanding and would like your confirmation:
>> In Figure 2 - PAPI Example of "printer-finisher"
> printer-finisher[1] = "index=8;
> type=stitcher;
> unit=sheets;
> maxcapacity=500;
> capacity=100;"
>> Our understanding is as follows:
> type(IPP) = finDeviceType(RFC3806)
> unit(IPP) = finDeviceCapacityUnit(RFC3806)
> maxcapacity(IPP) = finDeviceMaxCapacity(RFC3806)
> capacity(IPP) = finDeviceCurrentCapacity(RFC3806)
>> So, finDeviceMaxCapacity is the maximum capacity of finDeviceType
> finishing can handle with the unit of finDeviceCapacityUnit. Right?
>> In the case of type=stacker and unit=sheets, finDeviceMaxCapacity
> indicates the maximum number of sheets that can be loaded, and
> finDeviceCurrentCapacity indicates the remaining number of sheets.
>> If our understanding is correct, the example in Figure 2 type=stitcher
> allows stapling 500 sheets of paper at a time.
> （Similarly, in Figure 2, when type=puncher, 100 holes can be made at a
> time.）
>> We would like to know our understanding of finDeviceMaxCapacity and
> finDeviceCurrentCapacity is correct.
>> Can you please confirm that.
>>>>> (Below is the response I gave you in our private conversation.)
>> I don't know the answers. The definitions for finDeviceMaxCapacity and
> finDeviceCurrentCapacity in RFC 3806 aren't clear at all on what a maximum
> capacity or current capacity means in the context of a finisher. Ira, can
> you provide any clarifications on these?
>> It also seems a bit too wide open to let the printer choose the unit type.
>> Your example also raises an interesting question about stackers. The
> Finishing MIB defines 'stacker' as a finisher type. But IPP
> "finishings-col" doesn't have a representation for stackers - it considers
> a stacker to be an "output-tray".
>> Mike, what do you think we ought to do about the FinDeviceTypeTC types in
> the Finishing MIB that don't have IPP equivalents in finishings-col?
>> FinDeviceTypeTC ::= TEXTUAL-CONVENTION
> STATUS current
> DESCRIPTION
> "The defined finishing device subunit process
> enumerations."
> SYNTAX INTEGER {
> other(1),
> unknown(2),
> stitcher(3),
> folder(4),
> binder(5),
> trimmer(6),
> dieCutter(7),
> puncher(8),
> perforater(9),
> slitter(10),
> separationCutter(11),
> imprinter(12),
> wrapper(13),
> bander(14),
> makeEnvelope(15),
> stacker(16),
> sheetRotator(17),
> inserter(18)
> }
>>>>>-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.pwg.org/pipermail/ipp/attachments/20210107/8bee19c3/attachment.html>