The PWG Finisher MIB meeting took place Friday, 5/22/98, in Crystal City, VA. Clarifications to the draft and new terminology were reviewed. A proposal from Ira McDonald for handling constrains, although admired, was declined on the basis of being too general for our needs. Instead, specific means for indicating constraints tailored to the Finisher were adopted. The Finisher MIB is still lacking a conformance statement, a compile test and complete IETF like terminology (Should, Shall etc.) to turn it into an Internet Draft. The next meeting will be Friday, July 10 in Monterey. If we need an additional meeting, beyond this one, it will happen either on Tuesday evening in Toronto or at a separate session from the PWG, possibly hosted by one of the participating companies. This should bring the Finisher MIB to a close.
Lee Farrell - Canon
Ron Bergman - Dataproducts (Editor)
Carlos Becerra - HP
Tom Hastings - Xerox
Harry Lewis - (Chair, Secretary)
We added a new finishing category - "MakeEnvelop" Group 150 to address a new finishing feature that creates envelopes on the fly. This feature was brought to our attention by Carlos.
Add "NAME" to device attribute entry to allow named configurations (per customer).
Constraints kept simple rather than adopting Ira's general proposal. Added finMediaTypeCombinationRestiriction (14) which lists media/finishing operation mismatches - like don't z-fold a transparency.
Also agreed to add one more "constraint" attribute that represents which printer inputs the finishing operation relates to (or not). See Tom's proposal or the updated document for syntax.
Textual conventions for PrtMarkerSuppliesTypeTC need to be same for Printer MIB and Finisher MIB. Need to agree on PWG process for updating the TC in the Printer MIB so the Printer MIB and Finisher MIB may coexist.
We will not put the attribute table in the alerts. Only 30, 31, 32.
Need to propose the list for registration and ask for last call.
Reviewed specific SNMP issues - as provided in notes from Tom to Ron. Captured in Ron's markup's.
We agreed that Finishing Operations (stitch), position (edge) and number (2 or 3) should all be separately described but also to allow generic terms like "CornerStaple", "3HolePunch". These named operations do not address specific placement.
In the end, there was an issue with coordinate systems, reference edges, offsets etc. We removed the DPA term "Jog Edge" from our documentation at the Portland meeting and probably should not have. We weren't sure, then, how it was used. Now, Carlos has helped us understand how Job Edge relates to describing finishing axis when the printer can feed multiple media sizes and will need to align finishing operations on both a reference and jog edge. "Jog Edge" will be put back in the specification.