Subject: Re: PMP> Another hrBit

From: Harry Lewis <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 12 Dec 1997 10:54:13 -0500

I like any and all of the name change recommendations. I'm glad we have
agreement with intent on the e-mail... to date, no disagreement. Great! Lloyd,
or Chris, will you just update the standing proposal with this additional bit
(pick a name from the list... pmOverdue, overduePreventativeMaintenance,
pmOverduePreventativeMaintenance... or be creative yourselves)... or should I
rework and resubmit the proposal? I get the sense that hr group has not focused
on this yet (please correct me if I'm wrong), so I don't see any harm in the
addition.

Harry Lewis - IBM Printing Systems

[email-masked] on 12/11/97 07:05:17 PM
Please respond to [email-masked] @ internet
To: Harry Lewis/Boulder/IBM@ibmus
cc: [email-masked] @ internet, [email-masked] @ internet, [email-masked]
@ internet
Subject: Re: PMP> Another hrBit

I certainly agree with the intent of the proposal.  The name, however,
still looks strange.  I believe that in Harry's original name the "pm" was
to represent "preventive maintenance".  So the revised name really should
be:

 overduePreventiveMaintenance

How does this sound?

 Ron Bergman
 Dataproducts Corp.

On Thu, 11 Dec 1997, Harry Lewis wrote:

> Yes, I like Jay's name better. Can we get consensus to add this to the current
> hrPrinterDetectedErrorState bit extensions? By the way... what's the status
> regarding these extensions and the hrMIB? For that matter, what's the status
of > the Printer MIB? > > Harry Lewis - IBM Printing Systems > > > > >
[email-masked] on 12/11/97 10:17:53 AM > Please respond to [email-masked]
@ internet > To: Harry Lewis/Boulder/IBM@ibmus > cc: [email-masked] @ internet >
Subject: Re: PMP> Another hrBit > > > I'd agree with this proposal, so long as
the name is changed to > better reflect the semantics.  Maybe something like: >
pmOverduePreventiveMaintenance > > I know it's a bit long, but it clearly
states the semantics and > scope of the variable. > >  ...jay > >
---------------------------------------------------------------------- > --  JK
Martin               |  Email:   [email-masked]          -- > --
Underscore, Inc.        |  Voice:   (603) 889-7000              -- > --  41C
Sagamore Park Road  |  Fax:     (603) 889-2699              -- > --  Hudson, NH
03051-4915   |  Web:     http://www.underscore.com   -- >
---------------------------------------------------------------------- > >
Harry Lewis wrote: > > > > I'd like to extend the proposal for new
hrPrinterDetectedErrorState bits by > > adding one more bit > > > > >
pmOverdue     6     warning(3) or down(5) > > > > This bit would be set if and
when the device detected that a preventive > > maintenance > > schedule had been
exceeded. It would be up to the implementation if this > > stops printing or not
(typically, not!). > > > > Harry Lewis - IBM Printing Systems > > >

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Fri, 12 Dec 1997 11:02:11 -0500

What is the justification for adding new bits to the
prtDetectedErrorState HR MIB byte? It appears to me that
we are going overboard in assigning new bits to less than
frequent error conditions.
Lloyd Young

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Mon, 15 Dec 1997 13:49:05 -0500

I think we are going in the wrong direction on these HR bits.
I would prefer to see fewer bits defined in the HR MIB and not
more. I happen to think that there were too many printer detected
error state bits initially defined in the HR MIB. In my opinion,
we are making a bad situation worst by defining even more bits
in the HR MIB. I think that by defining more bits in the HR MIB
and increasing our dependency even further on the HR MIB that
we are only making our job harder should we in the future attempt
to divorce ourselves entirely from the HR MIB.

Therefore based only on principle, I want to vote against adding
any bits to the HR MIB.

Lloyd Young