Hi Stuart,
Good changes! I will update the document and send it out ASAP.
I am planning to have a teleconference next Thursday to review. Hope
you can call in.
Ron
________________________________
From: Stuart Rowley [mailto:Stuart.Rowley at ktd-kyocera.com]
Sent: Thursday, November 09, 2006 9:22 AM
To: Bergman, Ron
Cc: pmp at pwg.org
Subject: RE: PMP> Indexing option for prtAlertGroupIndex to identify
function
Hi Ron,
This looks much better to me.
Typo: "The value of prtMediaPathIndex will be less... the "be" was
missing.
I am not sure that prtMediaPath, prtInput, etc should be referred to as
"common alert groups". The alert groups are really
prtAlertGroupTC:cover, prtAlertGroupTC:input, etc. Perhaps instead of
the following text,
"For the MFD subunits that are represented in the common alert groups of
prtMediaPath, prtInput,..."
how about:
"When an alert occurs relating to an MFD subunit common to multiple MFD
functions (prtMediaPath, prtInput, prtChannel, prtConsole, prtCover,
systemGeneralTransformer, systemGeneralOutputChannel, and
systemGeneralSupply), there may be no information to indicate the MFD
function associated with the alert."
And in the last paragraph:
"Note for function groups that are unique, such as scanDeviceScanner,
this index grouping method may be followed to simplify detection, or the
index values can be any desired values."
How about:
"When an alert occurs relating to an MFD subunit unique to a single MFD
function, such as scanDeviceScanner, this index grouping method may be
followed to simplify detection, or the index values can be any desired
values."
This reference needs to be updated:
a) New alert groups are not to be defined for MFD components where
equivalent groups already exist for the printer component. For example,
scan device covers will be included in the current covers group defined
for the Print Device. The associations to the MFD components are to be
accomplished using the index values. Refer to section 7, "Recommended
Indexing Values".
Thanks,
Stuart
Stuart Rowley
Network Product Mgr.
Kyocera Technology Development
1855 Gateway Blvd. #400
Concord, CA 94520
stuart.rowley at ktd-kyocera.com
V: 925.849.3306
F: 925.849.3399
________________________________
From: Bergman, Ron [mailto:Ron.Bergman at rpsa.ricoh.com]
Sent: Tuesday, November 07, 2006 4:53 PM
To: Stuart Rowley
Cc: pmp at pwg.org
Subject: RE: PMP> Indexing option for prtAlertGroupIndex to identify
function
Hi Stuart,
Here is another attempt. (Hope this is understandable, I think my brain
has been overloaded after studying all the CA propositions.)
For the MFD subunits that are represented in the common alert groups of
prtMediaPath, prtInput, prtChannel, prtConsole, prtCover,
systemGeneralTransformer, systemGeneralOutputChannel, and
systemGeneralSupply, there may be no information to indicate the MFD
function associated with the alert. A suggested method to provide this
association is to assign a group table index value range that uniquely
identifies the corresponding MFD function. Since the group table index
values are included in the alert table as the prtAlertGroupIndex value,
an SNMP agent is able to easily distinguish the applicable MFD function.
Although the exact grouping may be implementation dependent, the
following grouping is strongly suggested to provide interoperability
between MFDs and management applications.
It is recommended all MFDs assign table index values from 1 to 16383
(0x0001 to 0x3FFF) to the printer, the values from 20480 to 24575
(0x5000 to 0x5FFF) are to be assigned to the scan device and the values
from 24576 to 28671 (0x6000 to 0x6FFF) are to be assigned to the fax
device.
Example: For the mediaPath group (prtMediaPathTable) there will be
table entries for both the printer and the scan device functions. The
value of prtMediaPathIndex will be less than 16384 for a media path
associated with the printer and from 20480 to 24575 for a scan device.
Note for function groups that are unique, such as scanDeviceScanner,
this index grouping method may be followed to simplify detection, or the
index values can be any desired values.
________________________________
From: Stuart Rowley [mailto:Stuart.Rowley at ktd-kyocera.com]
Sent: Monday, November 06, 2006 9:44 AM
To: Bergman, Ron
Cc: pmp at pwg.org
Subject: RE: PMP> Indexing option for prtAlertGroupIndex to identify
function
Hi Ron,
Your description of the indexing is appropriate; however, there is still
no mention of prtAlertGroupIndex which is the same as the index of
prtInput, prtChannel, etc. but in the Alert, prtAlertGroupIndex is what
allows the management app to identify which function the alert is
relating to. I think completely leaving prtAlertGroupIndex out of this
text is a mistake.
I am also concerned about this sentence: The index position to be used
is the least significant index, not the position occupied by hrDeviceID.
I think hrDeviceID should not be introduced here without further
clarification. We discussed the use of hrDeviceID as an alternative
method for distinguishing the function, but it does not relate to the
use of the index position at all, so I think this is just confusing. If
we mention hrDeviceID, it should be a separate paragraph saying why
using the hrDeviceID for the scan function is not an acceptable
alternative for determining the function that an alert is related to. It
is not clear to me what "The index position to be used is the least
significant index," is trying to convey. Are you saying that for a
prtChannel relating to the fax, the index should start with 24576 rather
than say 25000? Is this necessary to state?
prtCovers should be prtCover.
Thanks,
Stuart
Stuart Rowley
Network Product Mgr.
Kyocera Technology Development
1855 Gateway Blvd. #400
Concord, CA 94520
stuart.rowley at ktd-kyocera.com
V: 925.849.3306
F: 925.849.3399
________________________________
From: Bergman, Ron [mailto:Ron.Bergman at rpsa.ricoh.com]
Sent: Thursday, November 02, 2006 4:05 PM
To: Stuart Rowley
Subject: RE: PMP> Indexing option for prtAlertGroupIndex to identify
function
Hi Stuart,
I made some modifications to your text. I thing there is still a
misunderstanding regarding the index this grouping applies to. Review
this part carefully.
11 Appendix A Suggested Indexing Method (Informative)
For the MFD subunits that are represented in the common alert groups of
prtMediaPath, prtInput, prtChannel, prtConsole, prtCovers,
systemGeneralTransformer, systemGeneralOutputChannel, and
systemGeneralSupply, there may be no information to indicate the MFD
function associated with the alert.
To allow an application implementation to easily determine the
functional device that is associated with an alert, it is recommended
that table index groups be assigned to each device. The index position
to be used is the least significant index, not the position occupied by
hrDeviceID. For example, in the prtMediaPath group, this applies to
prtMediaPathIndex. Although the exact grouping may be implementation
dependent, the following grouping is strongly suggested to provide
interoperability between MFDs and management applications.
It is recommended all MFDs assign table index values from 1 to 16383
(0x0001 to 0x3FFF) to the printer, the values from 20480 to 24575
(0x5000 to 0x5FFF) are to be assigned to the scan device and the values
from 24576 to 28671 (0x6000 to 0x6FFF) are to be assigned to the fax
device.
Let me know if you agree.
Ron
________________________________
From: Stuart Rowley [mailto:Stuart.Rowley at ktd-kyocera.com]
Sent: Wednesday, November 01, 2006 12:02 PM
To: Bergman, Ron
Subject: RE: PMP> Indexing option for prtAlertGroupIndex to identify
function
Ron,
I remember Ira saying recommended was too strong, but I kind of don't
get that. This is in a never never land of not being normative, but on
the other hand if everyone uses different ranges, then management apps
make wrong assumptions. The only reason not to use recommended in my
opinion is due to a special meaning of recommended in "standards-ese".
Thanks,
Stuart
________________________________
From: Bergman, Ron [mailto:Ron.Bergman at rpsa.ricoh.com]
Sent: Wednesday, November 01, 2006 11:56 AM
To: Stuart Rowley
Subject: RE: PMP> Indexing option for prtAlertGroupIndex to identify
function
Thanks Stuart, looks good. I hope to be able to get back to this later
in the week.
You probably missed some of the discussion, Ira indicated that
"recommended" was too strong (?) and indicated a requirement. We agreed
to use "suggested" instead. Whatever...
Too bad you missed the meeting with Ira actually present. He is an
interesting character.
Regards,
Ron
________________________________
From: Stuart Rowley [mailto:Stuart.Rowley at ktd-kyocera.com]
Sent: Tuesday, October 31, 2006 12:00 PM
To: pmp at pwg.org
Cc: Bergman, Ron
Subject: PMP> Indexing option for prtAlertGroupIndex to identify
function
Ron,
I took a stab at new text for section 7 Recommended Indexing Method.
Ira suggested that it should not be normative and should therefore be in
an appendix. I wasn't sure how to handle whether the ranges are
recommended or just an example. If there is no explicit agreement on the
ranges, then a management app has no idea of the special meaning of the
index. Therefore, "recommended" seems appropriate to me. I expanded the
ranges because Ira said that some device implementations may bump into
the previous range limits.
Appendix (x) - prtAlertGroupIndex Indexing Option
The various MFD functions share some common alert groups, such as
prtMediaPath, prtInput, prtOutput, prtChannel, prtConsole, prtCover,
etc., For alerts in these common alert groups, there may be no
information which indicates the MFD function affected by the alert. The
recommended method to allow a management application to associate an
alert with a specific device function is to assign index ranges to each
device function. The following prtAlertGroupIndex index ranges are
recommended; index values from 1 to 255 (0x0001 to 0x00FF) may be
assigned to the print function, index values from 256 to 511 (0x0100 to
0x01FF) may be assigned to the scan function, and index values from 512
to 767 (0x0200 to 0x02FF) may be assigned to the fax function. Note that
this method does not indicate when a common group alert affects multiple
device functions. For example, an open cover may affect the print, fax,
and scan functions, but only one prtAlertGroupIndex is used.
For the alert groups that are specific to one MFD function, such as
faxDeviceGeneral or scanDeviceScanner, prtAlertGroupIndex indices may be
assigned normally, i.e starting at index 1.
Best regards,
Stuart
Stuart Rowley
Network Product Mgr.
Kyocera Technology Development
1855 Gateway Blvd. #400
Concord, CA 94520
stuart.rowley at ktd-kyocera.com
V: 925.849.3306
F: 925.849.3399
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.pwg.org/archives/pmp/attachments/20061109/f4dd7f48/attachment.html