WBMM> Differences

WBMM> Differences

WBMM> Differences

Harry Lewis harryl at us.ibm.com
Sun Feb 9 00:38:18 EST 2003

Sounds to me like we are nearly in violent agreement. I thought it was you 
who coined the phrase "MIB replacement" in the thread.. so I was just 
trying to speak your language. I agree we should probably articulate the 
charter such that reasonable alternatives may be considered or 
discovered... but I think we should also acknowledge all 3 or 4 most vocal 
and interested parties (so far) seem to "anticipate" the application of 
HTTP and XML to get the job done. When we built the (very successful) 
Printer MIB standard... we did not embark in a vague or general 
direction... I feel being as specific as we can about our goal will help 
us achieve better results sooner. 
Harry Lewis 
IBM Printing Systems 

"Wagner,William" <WWagner at NetSilicon.com>
Sent by: owner-wbmm at pwg.org
02/08/2003 06:49 PM
        To:     Harry Lewis/Boulder/IBM at IBMUS
        cc:     <wbmm at pwg.org>
        Subject:        RE: WBMM> Differences

At least  we both agree with Cathy.
To answer your questions:
a. Replacing MIBs as an object itself would inherently self justify the 
effort.  However, as a part of a solution, the need for such an effort 
must be justified. 
b. You can define a PWG activity which, for the various  reasons you have 
cited, determines that developing a replacement for MIBs is a justifiable 
object in  itself. Quite frankly, I am not sure that I even understand 
what you mean  by a replacement for MIBs, and I suggest that some examples 
may help. 
Regardless, at this point, your own position is that we have not 
adequately scoped out the WBMM. Therefore, to preserve some order, I 
suggest that we should not be considering solutions to a problem we have 
not defined, but continue in an orderly way to scope out the objective.
Indeed, even though I would agree that I see little alternative to  HTTP, 
probably XML, and quite possible SOAP as being components of the solution, 
I would not define these in the objectives or even the requirements. Nor 
would I refuse to entertain alternate ideas if reasonable ones were 
offered. Again, I think that short-circuits the development process.
Bill Wagner

                 -----Original Message----- 
                 From: Harry Lewis [mailto:harryl at us.ibm.com] 
                 Sent: Fri 2/7/2003 3:28 PM 
                 To: Wagner,William 
                 Cc: wbmm at pwg.org 
                 Subject: RE: WBMM> Differences

                 Whether we define a "replacement for MIBs" as the result 
of "establishing a transport, protocol and format as part of the solution" 
... or we do it because it is justifiable in itself... what's the 
                 I wold argue it IS justifiable for reasons I cited in an 
earlier post.. not the least of which is resolving some of the force 
fitting we did with the MIB (ex. MIB-II, hrMIB)... (ex. "magic decode 
                 Also, there are multiple models today (CIM, SNMP, NPAP 
etc.) which it would be good to consolidate 
                 Also, this is an opportunity for the PWG to address MFP 
function which we've shied from for, probably, too long. 
                 Harry Lewis 
                 IBM Printing Systems 
                 "Wagner,William" <WWagner at NetSilicon.com> 

02/07/2003 01:09 PM 

        To:        Harry Lewis/Boulder/IBM at IBMUS, <wbmm at pwg.org> 
        Subject:        RE: WBMM> Differences 

                 Identifying and resolving differences, and coming to 
consensus is one of the main functions of a working group. So let see 
where the differences really lie. 
                 I believe that scenarios add some specific to the general 
statements of scope. Harry has outlined one, or maybe two  here. I solicit 
from whomever has an opinion on this whatever other scenarios they would 
like addressed by this working group. 
                  I certainly agree that "management across the firewall" 
is the basis for multiple scenarios. To  me, the basic problem to be 
                 But is " standard protocol and NEW data model"  to be 
taken as an objective in itself , or is it part of the solution to the 
                 Certainly, establishing a transport, a protocol, a format 
 all need to be defined as part of the solution. If there is a difference 
between me and my fellow officers, it is that I do not agree that 
establishing a replacement for MIBs (as has been cited earlier) is 
justifiable as an objective in itself. Further, I am not convinced that it 
will be a necessary part of the solution.... it may be, but that needs to 
be demonstrated. 
                 It may be that the "differences" are just a matter of 
semantics. I certainly do not suggest that ASN.1 be used to convey 
management data...but it isn't used now either. What is communicated over 
SNMP is the OID and the value. 
                 So I suggest that we start talking examples and scenarios 
to better define the scope and objectives. Then we can sort through them 
and see how to proceed. 
                 Unfortunately, we are now in the middle of a snow storm 
and I must fight my way home, so my contribution will have to wait a 
while. But please, take advantage of the New England weather and beat me 
to the punch! 
                 Bill Wagner 
                 -----Original Message-----
                 From: Harry Lewis [mailto:harryl at us.ibm.com]
                 Sent: Friday, February 07, 2003 2:41 PM
                 To: wbmm at pwg.org
                 Subject: WBMM> Differences
                 I'd like to try and resolve some of the (unfortunate) 
differences we are having regarding Charter, Scope, Requirements. 
                 From what I can decipher, there is a well established 
interest in solving the problem "I've been getting at my (device) 
management data remotely, within my enterprise just fine... but, now, how 
can I access it across the firewall" (maybe to provide services to 
multiple enterprises etc.). 
                 Others also want to solve... "... and what is the 
standard protocol and data model that lends itself to the web services 
environment that may be employed by proxy servers and/or directly in the 
embedded device". 
                 Of course, we will have legacy SNMP devices to manage for 
quite some time but I don't think the current existence of SNMP is the 
answer to the 2nd question. 
                 Harry Lewis 
                 IBM Printing Systems 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.pwg.org/archives/wims/attachments/20030208/90486eeb/attachment-0001.html

More information about the Wims mailing list