> I apologize for missing what probably was stated, but is the intent to
> finalize the excellent list of 'interesting' printer states (as
> supplemented by others), or to agree on all of the values associated
> with each state?
My desire is that both are finalized in this call.
> Further, assuming even that we are just finalizing the 'states', is it
> implicit that compliance will require a printer to discern such
> 'states'? For example, I would regard Initial Power Up as a 'mute'
> state in may cases simply because the printer can initialize before
> the network interface sorts out who it is, where it is, does its
> advertising, gets stacks built, and services the SNMP request.
It is not required that a printer must discern such 'states' to be in
compliance. It is "strongly desired" that if a printer does detect
these states that the alert look like the one proposed.
> Finally, I again suggest that the MIB walk analysis must include the
> results of the referenced sections of MIB-II, unless of course we have
> decided that the requirement for these groups is not necessary in the
> printer MIB.
Bill, At the start of the InterOp testing we discussed whether or not to
include MIB-II in our MIB walk results and decided that it was not necessary.
We can re-address this at the start of today's conference call if you like.
Lloyd Young