> As the deadline for MIB updates and clarifications is today, I propose the
> following.
>
> 1) Put the table of ~25 Printer Conditions (as posted in err4.doc) in the
> Printer MIB document.
>
> 2) I withdraw my suggested wording.
Hold on a minute. You also made some excellent contributions regarding
other aspects of the document that did not involve the "offline" issue.
I certainly hope we retain those, don't you? (Besides, Chuck has probably
already made the changes... ;-)
And thanks for making me realize that I did not follow up (in my message)
to describe the scenarios resulting from my proposed changes:
> It is apparent that we disagree on how it is best to present printer
> condition information to our customers. As such, it should be left up to
> the printer vendor to decide the best implementation for their customers.
> When a generic management app interprets the Alert Table it may show the
> user either of the following:
> RED: Printer offline
> YEL: Low toner
> or
> RED: Low toner
>
> To me the first says that the printer can be put back online to continue
> printing; the second says the printer must have toner added to continue
> printing. Let each vendor decide what is appropriate.
Based on my proposal, here is the scenario:
1. Toner goes low, printer goes offline. User sees this display from
the management app:
RED: Printer has stopped due to low toner
2. User goes to printer, presses "Continue" (or whatever). User now
sees this display from the mgmt app:
YELLOW: Printer is low on toner
That is, once "Continue" is invoked, the RED (critical) alert is removed
from the table, and is replaced with a YELLOW (non-critical, warning) alert.
You say:
> Let each vendor decide what is appropriate.
Ok, so we don't agree here. We need to vote on this as quickly as possible.
...jay