Subject: PMP> printerNMSReset

From: Harry Lewis <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 27 Feb 1998 11:08:55 -0500

I noticed something that (must have) occurred while moving the Printer MIB
forward which sets a precedent I'm not sure we should want to set.  For Alert
Code printerNMSReset(505), however, we have actually DEFINED the LOC value to
be the same as the enumerated integer of the possible types of reset. This
sounds reasonable, except, in the context of a device defined (i.e. not
standardized) OID, fixing the values may result in conflict with specific
device registries. If we had made this assertion from the very beginning,
devices could have avoided the use of these values but trying to comply now may
result in compatibility problems for the device.

To my knowledge, aside from this one example, the Alert entry LOCATION value
remains entirely device specific.

Harry Lewis - IBM Printing Systems

---

From: Bob Pentecost <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 28 Feb 1998 11:53:44 -0700

I agree with Harry that this is a bad precedent and we probably didn't think 
through the consequences when we defined it that way.

As a side note, could a device really put an alert in the table for this 
condition if the reset was caused by powerCycleReset(4)?

Bob