Subject: JMP> Job MIB doesn't handle Uncollated Copies

From: Harry Lewis <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 15 Nov 1997 01:32:43 -0500

This message could be long - suffice it to say that I hope this news will be
received in the spirit of an "early warning" interoperability issue.

The issue lies with the following Job MIB attributes:

|sheetsCompletedCurrentCopy(152)
|impressionsCompletedCurrentCopy attributes(113)
|documentCopiesCompleted(93)
|jobCopiesCompleted(91)

The problem is that these attributes can accurately reflect a "Mopy"
or internal collation, but are inadequate if used to describe
uncollated copies (or externally collated... such as use of
sequential output bins).

With "Internal Collation", one copy is "worked on" at a time. That copy
is finished (jobCopiesCompleted) and the next is started, resetting
"sheetsCompletedCurrentCopy"

With "External Collation" (uncollated) multiple copies are "worked on"
before any copy is completed. Thus, "sheetsCompletedCurrentCopy" has
no meaning and "jobCopiesCompleted" jumps from initial to final value
in one increment (not very useful).

One possible reaction to the realization is to catagorize "External
Collation" as uninteresting, or just a "larger" job. (I had this
tendancy, initially). But, recall, IPP supports collated and
uncollated copies. Also, as mentioned above, the uncollated case is
the same (to the Job MIB agent) as sorting into multiple outputs.

I have discussed this problem, at length, with my development team and
also consulted with Tom Hastings (editor), briefly. Tom was receptive
and helpful and contributed to the following proposal:

Add the following attributes
---
currentSheetNumber
currentImpressionNumber
currentCopyNumber
currentDocumentNumber

Replace these "completed" attributes with their new "current" counterparts
-------
sheetsCompletedCurrentCopy(152)
impressionsCompletedCurrentCopy attributes(113)

Decide whether or not to Keep these "completed" attributes
                         ----
documentCopiesCompleted(93)
jobCopiesCompleted(91)

for accounting purposes. Note, the "completed" values ONLY make
sense for collated copies and/or FINAL values on uncollated jobs.
For this reason, we recommend adding a final additional attribute
                              ---
copyType (ENUM - Internal Collation
                 External Collation)

The value of the currentXxx attributes is 0 while the job is
PENDING. The values increment to 1 as the first impression is
produced. An abbreviated example (sheets and jobs, only) should
help visualize. For example, assume a 3 impression job with a
request for 3 copies.

Uncollated 3/3  (copyType = External Collation)
--------------

sheetsCompleted    currentSheetNumber    currentCopyNumber
---------------    ------------------    -----------------
1    1        1
2                  1                     2
3                  1                     3
4                  2                     1
5                  2                     2
6                  2                     3
7                  3                     1
8                  3                     2
9                  3                     3

Collated 3/3  (copyType = Internal Collation)
------------

sheetsCompleted    currentSheetNumber    currentCopyNumber
---------------    ------------------    -----------------
1    1        1
2                  2                     1
3                  3                     1
4                  1                     2
5                  2                     2
6                  3                     2
7                  1                     3
8                  2                     3
9                  3                     3

The issue of whether or not to keep attributes

documentCopiesCompleted(93)
jobCopiesCompleted(91)

could be resolved by specifying that the final value of

currentCopyNumber
currentDocumentNumber

*is* the completed value and the attribute maintains this value
for the remainig life of the entry.

I did not show an example using currentDocumentNumber because this
is for high end implementations that collate documents within jobs.
Nonetheless, the same problem (solution) exists.

Harry Lewis

---

From: Ron Bergman <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 18 Nov 1997 08:22:00 -0800 (Pacific Standard Time)

Harry,

I do believe that Tom's proposed change solves the issue that you
presented.  Since this looks like an easy change to incorporate, I
proposed that this be accepted.

	Ron Bergman
	Dataproducts Corp.