Hi=20 Ron,

Your = description of the=20 indexing is appropriate; however, there is still no mention of=20 prtAlertGroupIndex which is the same as the index of prtInput, = prtChannel, etc.=20 but in the Alert, prtAlertGroupIndex is what allows the management app = to=20 identify which function the alert is relating to. I think completely = leaving=20 prtAlertGroupIndex out of this text is a = mistake.

I am also = concerned=20 about this sentence: The index position to be = used is the=20 least significant index, not the position occupied by=20 hrDeviceID.

I think = hrDeviceID=20 should not be introduced here without further clarification. We = discussed the=20 use of hrDeviceID as an alternative method for distinguishing the = function, but=20 it does not relate to the use of the index position at all, so I think = this is=20 just confusing. If we mention hrDeviceID, it should be a separate = paragraph=20 saying why using the hrDeviceID for the scan function is not an = acceptable=20 alternative for determining the function that an alert is related to. It = is not=20 clear to me what “The index position to be = used is the=20 least significant index,” is trying=20 to convey. Are you saying that for a prtChannel relating to the fax, the = index=20 should start with 24576 rather than say 25000? Is this necessary to=20 state?

prtCovers = should be=20 prtCover.

Thanks,

Stuart

Stuart=20 Rowley

Network = Product=20 Mgr.

Kyocera = Technology=20 Development

1855 Gateway = Blvd.=20 #400

Concord, CA 94520

stuart.rowley@ktd-kyocera.c= om

V:=20 925.849.3306

F:=20 925.849.3399

From: Bergman,=20 Ron [mailto:Ron.Bergman@rpsa.ricoh.com]
Sent: Thursday, November 02, 2006 = 4:05=20 PM
To: = Stuart Rowley
Subject: RE: PMP> Indexing = option for=20 prtAlertGroupIndex to identify = function

Hi=20 Stuart,

I made some=20 modifications to your text. I thing there is still a = misunderstanding=20 regarding the index this grouping applies to. Review this part=20 carefully.

11 =20 Appendix A Suggested Indexing Method =20 (Informative)

For the MFD=20 subunits that are represented in the common alert groups of = prtMediaPath,=20 prtInput, prtChannel, prtConsole, prtCovers, systemGeneralTransformer,=20 systemGeneralOutputChannel, and systemGeneralSupply, there may be no = information=20 to indicate the MFD function associated with the=20 alert.

To allow an=20 application implementation to easily determine the functional device = that is=20 associated with an alert, it is recommended that table index groups be = assigned=20 to each device. The index position to be used is the least = significant=20 index, not the position occupied by hrDeviceID. For example, in = the=20 prtMediaPath group, this applies to prtMediaPathIndex. = Although the=20 exact grouping may be implementation dependent, the following grouping = is=20 strongly suggested to provide interoperability between MFDs and = management=20 applications.

It is=20 recommended all MFDs assign table index values from 1 to 16383 (0x0001 = to=20 0x3FFF) to the printer, the values from 20480 to 24575 (0x5000 to = 0x5FFF) are to=20 be assigned to the scan device and the values from 24576 to 28671 = (0x6000 to=20 0x6FFF) are to be assigned to the fax = device.

Let me know = if you=20 agree.

=20 Ron

From:=20 Stuart Rowley=20 [mailto:Stuart.Rowley@ktd-kyocera.com]
Sent: Wednesday, November 01, = 2006 12:02=20 PM
To: Bergman, = Ron
Subject: RE: PMP> Indexing = option for=20 prtAlertGroupIndex to identify function

Ron,

I remember = Ira saying=20 recommended was too strong, but I kind of don’t get that. This is = in a never=20 never land of not being normative, but on the other hand if everyone = uses=20 different ranges, then management apps make wrong assumptions. The only = reason=20 not to use recommended in my opinion is due to a special meaning of = recommended=20 in “standards-ese”.

Thanks,

Stuart

From: Bergman,=20 Ron [mailto:Ron.Bergman@rpsa.ricoh.com]
Sent: Wednesday, November 01, = 2006 11:56=20 AM
To: = Stuart Rowley
Subject: RE: PMP> Indexing = option for=20 prtAlertGroupIndex to identify = function

Thanks = Stuart, looks=20 good. I hope to be able to get back to this later in the=20 week.

You probably = missed=20 some of the discussion, Ira indicated that "recommended" was too strong=20 (?) and indicated a requirement. We agreed to use "suggested" = instead. Whatever...

Too bad you = missed the=20 meeting with Ira actually present. He is an interesting=20 character.

Regards,

Ron

From:=20 Stuart Rowley=20 [mailto:Stuart.Rowley@ktd-kyocera.com]
Sent: Tuesday, October 31, 2006 = 12:00=20 PM
To: = pmp@pwg.org
Cc: Bergman, Ron
Subject: PMP> Indexing option = for=20 prtAlertGroupIndex to identify function

Ron,

I took a stab = at new=20 text for section 7 Recommended Indexing = Method.

Ira suggested = that it=20 should not be normative and should therefore be in an appendix. I = wasn’t sure=20 how to handle whether the ranges are recommended or just an example. If = there is=20 no explicit agreement on the ranges, then a management app has no idea = of the=20 special meaning of the index. Therefore, “recommended” seems = appropriate to me.=20 I expanded the ranges because Ira said that some device implementations = may bump=20 into the previous range limits.

Appendix (x) - = prtAlertGroupIndex=20 Indexing Option

The various MFD functions share some common = alert=20 groups, such as prtMediaPath, prtInput, prtOutput, prtChannel, = prtConsole,=20 prtCover, etc., For alerts in these common alert groups, there may be no = information which indicates the MFD function affected by the alert. The=20 recommended method to allow a management application to associate an = alert with=20 a specific device function is to assign index ranges to each device = function.=20 The following prtAlertGroupIndex index ranges are recommended; index = values from=20 1 to 255 (0x0001 to 0x00FF) may be assigned to the print function, index = values=20 from 256 to 511 (0x0100 to 0x01FF) may be assigned to the scan function, = and=20 index values from 512 to 767 (0x0200 to 0x02FF) may be assigned to the = fax=20 function. Note that this method does not indicate when a common group = alert=20 affects multiple device functions. For example, an open cover may affect = the=20 print, fax, and scan functions, but only one prtAlertGroupIndex is used. =

For the alert groups that are specific to one = MFD=20 function, such as faxDeviceGeneral or scanDeviceScanner, = prtAlertGroupIndex=20 indices may be assigned normally, i.e starting at index=20 1.

Best=20 regards,

Stuart

Stuart=20 Rowley

Network = Product=20 Mgr.

Kyocera = Technology=20 Development

1855 Gateway = Blvd.=20 #400

Concord, CA 94520

stuart.rowley@ktd-kyocera.c= om

V:=20 925.849.3306

F:=20 925.849.3399

Hi = Ron,

This looks much better to me. =

Typo: “The value of prtMediaPathIndex will be less… = the “be” was = missing.

I am not sure that prtMediaPath, = prtInput, etc should be referred to as “common alert groups”. The = alert groups are really prtAlertGroupTC:cover, prtAlertGroupTC:input, etc. = Perhaps instead of the following text,

“For the MFD subunits that are represented in the common alert = groups of prtMediaPath, prtInput,…” =

how = about:

“When an alert occurs relating = to an MFD subunit common to multiple MFD functions (prtMediaPath, prtInput, = prtChannel, prtConsole, prtCover, systemGeneralTransformer, = systemGeneralOutputChannel, and systemGeneralSupply), there may be no information to indicate the MFD = function associated with the alert.” =

And in the last = paragraph:

“Note for = function groups that are = unique, such as scanDeviceScanner, this index grouping method may be followed to simplify detection, or the index values can be any desired = values.”

How = about:

“When an alert occurs relating = to an MFD subunit unique to a single MFD function, such as scanDeviceScanner, this = index grouping method may be followed to simplify detection, or the index = values can be any desired values.”

This reference needs to be = updated:

a) = New alert groups are not to be defined for MFD components where equivalent = groups already exist for the printer component. For example, scan device = covers will be included in the current covers group defined for the Print Device. The associations to the MFD components are to be = accomplished using the index values. Refer to section 7, “Recommended Indexing Values”.

Thanks,

Stuart

Stuart Rowley

Network Product = Mgr.

Kyocera Technology = Development

1855 Gateway Blvd. = #400

Concord, CA 94520

stuart.rowley@ktd-kyocera.c= om

V: = 925.849.3306

F: = 925.849.3399

From: = Bergman, Ron [mailto:Ron.Bergman@rpsa.ricoh.com]
Sent: Tuesday, November = 07, 2006 4:53 PM
To: Stuart Rowley
Cc: pmp@pwg.org
Subject: RE: PMP> = Indexing option for prtAlertGroupIndex to identify = function

Hi = Stuart,

Here is another attempt. (Hope this is understandable, I think my brain has been overloaded after studying all the CA propositions.)

For the MFD = subunits that are represented in the common alert groups of prtMediaPath, prtInput, prtChannel, prtConsole, prtCover, systemGeneralTransformer, systemGeneralOutputChannel, and systemGeneralSupply, there may be no information to indicate the MFD function associated with the = alert. A suggested method to provide this association is to assign a group table = index value range that uniquely identifies the corresponding MFD = function. Since the group table index values are = included in the alert table as the prtAlertGroupIndex value, an SNMP agent is able = to easily distinguish the applicable MFD function. = Although the exact grouping may be implementation dependent, = the following grouping is strongly suggested to provide interoperability = between MFDs and management applications.

It is recommended = all MFDs assign table index values from 1 to 16383 (0x0001 to 0x3FFF) to the = printer, the values from 20480 to 24575 (0x5000 to 0x5FFF) are to be assigned to = the scan device and the values from 24576 to 28671 (0x6000 to 0x6FFF) are to = be assigned to the fax device.

Example: = For the mediaPath group (prtMediaPathTable) there will be table entries for both = the printer and the scan device functions. The value of = prtMediaPathIndex will be less than 16384 for a media path associated with the printer and from 20480 to = 24575 for a scan device.

Note for = function groups that are = unique, such as scanDeviceScanner, this index grouping method may be followed to simplify detection, or the index values can be any desired = values.

From: Stuart Rowley = [mailto:Stuart.Rowley@ktd-kyocera.com]
Sent: Monday, November = 06, 2006 9:44 AM
To: Bergman, Ron
Cc: pmp@pwg.org
Subject: RE: PMP> = Indexing option for prtAlertGroupIndex to identify function

Hi = Ron,

Your description of the indexing is appropriate; however, there is still no mention of prtAlertGroupIndex = which is the same as the index of prtInput, prtChannel, etc. but in the Alert, prtAlertGroupIndex is what allows the management app to identify which = function the alert is relating to. I think completely leaving prtAlertGroupIndex = out of this text is a mistake.

I am also concerned about this = sentence: The index position to be used is the least significant index, not the position occupied by hrDeviceID.

I think hrDeviceID should not be introduced here without further clarification. We discussed the use of hrDeviceID as an alternative method for distinguishing the function, but = it does not relate to the use of the index position at all, so I think this = is just confusing. If we mention hrDeviceID, it should be a separate = paragraph saying why using the hrDeviceID for the scan function is not an = acceptable alternative for determining the function that an alert is related to. It = is not clear to me what “The index position to be = used is the least significant index,” is trying to convey. Are you saying that for a prtChannel relating to the = fax, the index should start with 24576 rather than say 25000? Is this necessary = to state?

prtCovers should be = prtCover.

Thanks,

Stuart

Stuart Rowley

Network Product = Mgr.

Kyocera Technology = Development

1855 Gateway Blvd. = #400

Concord, CA 94520

stuart.rowley@ktd-kyocera.c= om

V: = 925.849.3306

F: = 925.849.3399

From: = Bergman, Ron [mailto:Ron.Bergman@rpsa.ricoh.com]
Sent: Thursday, November = 02, 2006 4:05 PM
To: Stuart Rowley
Subject: RE: PMP> = Indexing option for prtAlertGroupIndex to identify = function

Hi = Stuart,

I made some modifications to your text. I thing there is still a misunderstanding regarding the = index this grouping applies to. Review this part = carefully.

11 Appendix A Suggested Indexing Method (Informative)

For the MFD subunits that are represented in the = common alert groups of prtMediaPath, prtInput, prtChannel, prtConsole, = prtCovers, systemGeneralTransformer, systemGeneralOutputChannel, and = systemGeneralSupply, there may be no information to indicate the MFD function associated with = the alert.

To allow an application implementation to = easily determine the functional device that is associated with an alert, it is recommended that table index groups be assigned to each device. = The index position to be used is the least significant index, not the position = occupied by hrDeviceID. For example, in the prtMediaPath group, this = applies to prtMediaPathIndex. Although the exact grouping may be implementation dependent, the following grouping is strongly suggested = to provide interoperability between MFDs and management = applications.

It is recommended all MFDs assign table index = values from 1 to 16383 (0x0001 to 0x3FFF) to the printer, the values from 20480 = to 24575 (0x5000 to 0x5FFF) are to be assigned to the scan device and the = values from 24576 to 28671 (0x6000 to 0x6FFF) are to be assigned to the fax = device.

Let me know if you = agree.

= Ron

From: Stuart Rowley = [mailto:Stuart.Rowley@ktd-kyocera.com]
Sent: Wednesday, November = 01, 2006 12:02 PM
To: Bergman, Ron
Subject: RE: PMP> = Indexing option for prtAlertGroupIndex to identify = function

Ron,

I remember Ira saying recommended = was too strong, but I kind of don’t get that. This is in a never never = land of not being normative, but on the other hand if everyone uses different = ranges, then management apps make wrong assumptions. The only reason not to use recommended in my opinion is due to a special meaning of recommended in “standards-ese”.

Thanks,

Stuart

From: = Bergman, Ron [mailto:Ron.Bergman@rpsa.ricoh.com]
Sent: Wednesday, November = 01, 2006 11:56 AM
To: Stuart Rowley
Subject: RE: PMP> = Indexing option for prtAlertGroupIndex to identify = function

Thanks Stuart, looks good. I = hope to be able to get back to this later in the = week.

You probably missed some of the discussion, Ira indicated that "recommended" was too strong (?) and indicated a requirement. We agreed to use "suggested" instead. = Whatever...

Too bad you missed the meeting with = Ira actually present. He is an interesting = character.

Regards,

Ron=

From: Stuart Rowley = [mailto:Stuart.Rowley@ktd-kyocera.com]
Sent: Tuesday, October = 31, 2006 12:00 PM
To: pmp@pwg.org
Cc: Bergman, Ron
Subject: PMP> Indexing = option for prtAlertGroupIndex to identify function

Ron,

I took a stab at new text for = section 7 Recommended Indexing Method.

Ira suggested that it should not be normative and should therefore be in an appendix. I wasn’t sure = how to handle whether the ranges are recommended or just an example. If there = is no explicit agreement on the ranges, then a management app has no idea of = the special meaning of the index. Therefore, “recommended” seems appropriate to me. I expanded the ranges because Ira said that some = device implementations may bump into the previous range = limits.

Appendix (x) - = prtAlertGroupIndex Indexing Option

The various MFD functions share some common alert groups, such = as prtMediaPath, prtInput, prtOutput, prtChannel, prtConsole, prtCover, = etc., For alerts in these common alert groups, there may be no information which indicates the MFD function affected by the alert. The recommended method = to allow a management application to associate an alert with a specific = device function is to assign index ranges to each device function. The = following prtAlertGroupIndex index ranges are recommended; index values from 1 to 255 (0x0001 to = 0x00FF) may be assigned to the print function, index values from 256 to 511 (0x0100 = to 0x01FF) may be assigned to the scan function, and index values from 512 = to 767 (0x0200 to 0x02FF) may be assigned to the fax function. Note that this = method does not indicate when a common group alert affects multiple device = functions. For example, an open cover may affect the print, fax, and scan = functions, but only one prtAlertGroupIndex is used.

For the alert groups that are specific to one MFD function, such = as faxDeviceGeneral or scanDeviceScanner, prtAlertGroupIndex indices may be assigned normally, i.e starting at index 1.

Best = regards,

Stuart

Stuart Rowley

Network Product = Mgr.

Kyocera Technology = Development

1855 Gateway Blvd. = #400

Concord, CA 94520

stuart.rowley@ktd-kyocera.c= om

V: = 925.849.3306

F: = 925.849.3399

Hi=20 Ron,

This looks = much better=20 to me.

Typo:=20 “The value of=20 prtMediaPathIndex will be = less… =20 the = “be” was=20 missing.

I am not sure = that=20 prtMediaPath, prtInput, etc should be referred to as “common alert = groups”. The=20 alert groups are really prtAlertGroupTC:cover, prtAlertGroupTC:input, = etc.=20 Perhaps instead of the following text,

“For the MFD = subunits=20 that are represented in the common alert groups of prtMediaPath,=20 prtInput,…”=20

how=20 about:

“When an = alert occurs=20 relating to an MFD subunit common to multiple MFD functions = (prtMediaPath,=20 prtInput, prtChannel, prtConsole, prtCover, systemGeneralTransformer,=20 systemGeneralOutputChannel, and systemGeneralSupply), there may be no=20 information to indicate the MFD function associated with the=20 alert.”=20

And in the = last=20 paragraph:

“Note = for=20 function = groups that = are unique,=20 such as scanDeviceScanner, this index grouping method may be followed to = simplify detection, or the index values can be any desired=20 values.”

How=20 about:

“When an = alert occurs=20 relating to an MFD subunit unique to a single MFD function, such as=20 scanDeviceScanner, this index grouping method may be followed to = simplify=20 detection, or the index values can be any desired = values.”

This = reference needs to=20 be updated:

a) =20 New alert groups are not to = be=20 defined for MFD components where equivalent groups already exist for the = printer=20 component. For example, scan device covers will be included in the = current=20 covers group defined for the Print Device. The associations to the = MFD=20 components are to be accomplished using the index values. Refer = to=20 section 7, “Recommended Indexing Values”.

Thanks,

Stuart

Stuart=20 Rowley

Network = Product=20 Mgr.

Kyocera = Technology=20 Development

1855 Gateway = Blvd.=20 #400

Concord, CA 94520

stuart.rowley@ktd-kyocera.c= om

V:=20 925.849.3306

F:=20 925.849.3399

From: Bergman,=20 Ron [mailto:Ron.Bergman@rpsa.ricoh.com]
Sent: Tuesday, November 07, 2006 = 4:53=20 PM
To: = Stuart Rowley
Cc: pmp@pwg.org
Subject: RE: PMP> Indexing = option for=20 prtAlertGroupIndex to identify = function

Hi=20 Stuart,

Here is = another=20 attempt. (Hope this is understandable, I think my brain has been=20 overloaded after studying all the CA propositions.)

For the MFD = subunits=20 that are represented in the common alert groups of prtMediaPath, = prtInput,=20 prtChannel, prtConsole, prtCover, systemGeneralTransformer,=20 systemGeneralOutputChannel, and systemGeneralSupply, there may be no = information=20 to indicate the MFD function associated with the alert. A = suggested method=20 to provide this association is to assign a group table index value range = that=20 uniquely identifies the corresponding MFD function. =20 Since the = group table=20 index values are included in the alert table as the prtAlertGroupIndex = value, an=20 SNMP agent is able to easily distinguish the applicable MFD = function. =20 Although the = exact=20 grouping may be implementation dependent, the following grouping is = strongly=20 suggested to provide interoperability between MFDs and management=20 applications.

It is = recommended all=20 MFDs assign table index values from 1 to 16383 (0x0001 to 0x3FFF) to the = printer, the values from 20480 to 24575 (0x5000 to 0x5FFF) are to be = assigned to=20 the scan device and the values from 24576 to 28671 (0x6000 to 0x6FFF) = are to be=20 assigned to the fax device.

Example: = For the=20 mediaPath group (prtMediaPathTable) there will be table entries for both = the=20 printer and the scan device functions. The value of = prtMediaPathIndex will=20 be = less than = 16384 for a=20 media path associated with the printer and from 20480 to 24575 for a = scan=20 device.

Note for=20 function = groups that = are unique,=20 such as scanDeviceScanner, this index grouping method may be followed to = simplify detection, or the index values can be any desired=20 values.

From:=20 Stuart Rowley=20 [mailto:Stuart.Rowley@ktd-kyocera.com]
Sent: Monday, November 06, 2006 = 9:44=20 AM
To: Bergman, = Ron
Cc: pmp@pwg.org
Subject: RE: PMP> Indexing = option for=20 prtAlertGroupIndex to identify function

Hi=20 Ron,

I am also = concerned=20 about this sentence: The index position to be = used is the=20 least significant index, not the position occupied by=20 hrDeviceID.

prtCovers = should be=20 prtCover.

Thanks,

Stuart

Stuart=20 Rowley

Network = Product=20 Mgr.

Kyocera = Technology=20 Development

1855 Gateway = Blvd.=20 #400

Concord, CA 94520

stuart.rowley@ktd-kyocera.c= om

V:=20 925.849.3306

F:=20 925.849.3399

Hi=20 Stuart,

I made some=20 modifications to your text. I thing there is still a = misunderstanding=20 regarding the index this grouping applies to. Review this part=20 carefully.

11 =20 Appendix A Suggested Indexing Method =20 (Informative)

Let me know = if you=20 agree.

=20 Ron

Ron,

Thanks,

Stuart

Thanks = Stuart, looks=20 good. I hope to be able to get back to this later in the=20 week.

You probably = missed=20 some of the discussion, Ira indicated that "recommended" was too strong=20 (?) and indicated a requirement. We agreed to use "suggested" = instead. Whatever...

Too bad you = missed the=20 meeting with Ira actually present. He is an interesting=20 character.

Regards,

Ron

Ron,

I took a stab = at new=20 text for section 7 Recommended Indexing = Method.

Appendix (x) - = prtAlertGroupIndex=20 Indexing Option

For the alert groups that are specific to one = MFD=20 function, such as faxDeviceGeneral or scanDeviceScanner, = prtAlertGroupIndex=20 indices may be assigned normally, i.e starting at index=20 1.

Best=20 regards,

Stuart

Stuart=20 Rowley

Network = Product=20 Mgr.

Kyocera = Technology=20 Development

1855 Gateway = Blvd.=20 #400

Concord, CA 94520

stuart.rowley@ktd-kyocera.c= om

V:=20 925.849.3306

F:=20 925.849.3399