Subject: PMP> Justification for prtAlertTime and prtAlertTimeGroup change

From: [email-masked]
Date: Wed, 19 Nov 1997 13:53:12 -0500

I am finally getting around to gathering up the justifications
for the changes between RFC1759 and the new Printer MIB. I have
been able to collect the justification for all changes except
for one. The change that I can not find any justification for
is the move of prtAlertTime from the prtAlertTimeGroup to the
prtAlertTableGroup and the subsequent deprecation of the
prtAlertTimeGroup. I have searched both the PMP and PWG mail
archives and while I can find mail that discusses the change,
I can not find any mail that says why the change was made or
why the change was required.
Help?
Lloyd
------------------------------------------------------------
Lloyd Young                       Lexmark International, Inc.
Senior Program Manager            Dept. C14L/Bldg. 035-3
Strategic Alliances               740 New Circle Road NW
internet: [email-masked]     Lexington, KY 40550
Phone: (606) 232-5150             Fax: (606) 232-6740

---

From: Tom Hastings <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 20 Nov 1997 12:47:33 PST

My firm recollection is that Jay pointed out that his application
couldn't tell whether an alert entry was two days old (and hadn't
been fixed) or had just happened, if the implementation didn't include 
the prtAlertTime object in the alert table entry.

Its also useful to the human user of the management application 
to know when the problem occurred, i.e., how long the condition has
been in existence.

This problem happens especially when the management application 
is first fired up (after the Printer has been running, for possibly
many days).

Of course, Printers clean up alert entries when the condition goes
away, so we are not requiring the prtAlertTime object so that management 
application can ignore old alert entries.

We also asked the members whether it was a problem to require
prtAlertTime and everyone agreed that it was worth the extra
cost/effort.

Tom