I guess the short question here is... does anyone think it's a "violation"
to flag a "paper out" WARNING. The key concern being the documented
correlation between hrPrinterDetectedErrorState (1) paperOut and
hrDeviceStatus (5) down.
The longer story...
I've been wrestling with the question of events associated with linked
resources. In general, the question pertains to Input and Output bins that
operate in a sequential manner. If two physical input trays are linked and
the first tray reaches empty there are (at least) 3 alert table options:
1. Treat the linked system as one logical tray that has a paper low
warning.
2. Treat the linked system as 2 physical trays, one of which has a
paper OUT WARNING.
3. Do nothing until the 2nd tray reaches paperLow.
The idea behind (2) is that it would be nice to inform the "operator"
that physical tray 1 is empty although the printer is still fully
operational. The problem with (1) is a very premature warning if 3
trays happen to be linked. I suspect (3) is what most implementations
do today.
Again, the main concern with (2) is that the hrMIB suggests that paperOut
is a down condition not a warning. Are we treating this correlation as
a "hard" expectation or just a recommendation?
Any other comments on how we might like to see this handled?
Harry Lewis - IBM Printing Systems.