As we are putting the finishing touches on the
code for the various MIBS we are supporting on
our printer, we came across a small point in the
Finishing MIB, which we wished to bring to your
attention.
Specifically, we were addressing those areas
in the mandatory Finisher groups, and noticed that
the deviceVendorName was not part of the
finDeviceTable, but rather to be found as a finDeviceAttribute.
This caused us to puzzle a bit, as we could not
imagine any situation wherein a given finisher might
have different vendors for its functions. These typically
come together as an ensemble of functions provided
by a single vendor [say, in our case stitching and
stacking].
Was this the intended design? Was there a particular
motivation for this approach? As a suggestion, should
you open the draft document again, you might want
to consider promoting the finDeviceAttributeDeviceVendorName
to simply finDeviceVendorName.
Thoughts?
-- Paul Henerlau
[henerlau@sharplabs.com]