Randy
Harry Lewis wrote:
> Guess I'd like to *strongly* recommend that every device with the
> printer MIB
> supports sysUpTime.
> I recall, rather vividly, the reason we chose sysUp was to acknowledge
> that
> many (most?) printers would not have a "real time" clock. But, the
> premise has
> always been that all printers could count ticks.
>
> I can see where there could be problems associated with sysUpTime, one
> that
> comes to mind is printers might not be real consistent (among vendors)
> as to
> how they treat sysUpTime on power cycles, remote resets, local resets
> etc. But,
> I thought the notion of synching with the printers sysUpTime on the
> PowerUp
> trap was a rather fundamental notion.
>
> Now, what if there *is no* sysUpTime (the original question)? Well, if
> there is
> no meaningful value, I guess 0 is about as good as any.
>
> >>> Harry Lewis <<<
>
> ------- Forwarded by Harry Lewis/Boulder/IBM on 06/06/97 03:14 PM
> --------
>
> pmp-owner@pwg.org
> 06/06/97 01:54 PM
> Please respond to rturner@sharplabs.com @ internet
>
> To: pmp@pwg.org @ internet
> cc:
> Subject: PMP> prtAlertTime issue
>
> Lloyd referenced an earlier mail message by Bob Pentecost reflecting a
>
> request by Bob as to
> what value should be returned by a GET for prtAlertTime if the printer
>
> didn't know the time.
> Values for INTEGER types have (other) and (unknown) as possible
> values.
> The 'TimeTicks'
> object has no such equivalents. prtAlertTime is now mandatory, and is
> based on sysUpTime
> from MIB-II. If someone performs a GET on prtAlertTime (according the
> curent definition),
> then it MUST return a valid value. There are no alternative 'other' or
>
> 'unknown' scenarios
> for an object like prtAlertTime, with type 'TimeTicks' that is based
> on
> MIB-II sysUpTime.
>
> Randy