1.a. - I agree... but I have a feeling I'm reading more into ("etc.") than
you may. You've listed usage, alerts, diagnostics, configuration,
downloading resources, downloading executables (presumably diagnostic or
interrogative in nature) and upgrading (remotely)... there seems to be
very little remaining that is done via SNMP today... so why not include
"the rest" ... like taking the device off-line, reading or writing the
OpPanel, ... "ETC...".?
1. b. - Yes, I've expressed several times that I believe we should address
the semantics for device management - just as we've recently done for job
submission and management and we should specifically try to clean up some
of the toxic waste we spilled in the status area during the early MIB days
("magic decoder ring", "agent orange" ).
2. I think we should make ourselves aware of existing or emerging
standards in the area. I don't think we should force alignment or
compliance unless we can clearly articulate the benefit and honestly feel
there is a very good chance that alignment will result in adoption. While
the Printer MIB is probably one of the most useful standards ever in terms
of heterogeneous printer management, most of the pretzel twists we
encountered to align with a larger cause never really achieved the hoped
for result (my opinion).
I feel we should leverage our own positive model and experience with the
semantic model. No one questions whether SM is the right thing to do. The
SM springboards from our most recent job protocol... IPP into the web
environment and does facilitate firewall scenarios I view WBMM as doing
the same thing... springboard off Printer, Finisher MIBs onto web
protocols via a common (device) semantic model.
3. We need to nail this firewall discussion early. I do agree that we want
to facilitate solutions that can cross the firewall... similar to the way
we've done PSI. I hear others reacting to this requirement as if it is an
inappropriate goal. This will drag on and haunt us later if not put to
IBM Printing Systems
"Wagner,William" <WWagner at NetSilicon.com>
Sent by: owner-wbmm at pwg.org
02/20/2003 03:03 PM
To: "'Wbmm (E-mail)" <wbmm at pwg.org>
Subject: RE: WBMM> RE: Scope and Starting Point
Bob Tailor had a very good suggestion. "..try to identify the issues
before [the conference call]
so you might ask that everyone post them to WBMM before the meeting. For
"simple" issues, we may be able to knock them off in email, saving our
phone time for the more significant/contentious issues."
I had intended that sort of thing in asking for comments on the write-up
(or any other comments that were felt to be germane). But an explicit
request may be more fruitful.
Please forward your issues to the list!
Lets start with a few that I see.
1. Basic purpose: I have defined it as access by an external agent to
imaging devices on an enterprise network, for the purpose of monitoring
usage and alerts, perhaps for doing maintenance tests and general
configuration, and perhaps for downloading files including executables,
fonts, upgrades, etc.
a. Do we have agreement on this?
b. Is there a strong feeing that the scope must be
expanded, and if so, how?
2. Consideration of the approaches in the documents referenced by Ira, Lee
and Don (thank you all). Should we embrace, ignore, or possibly extract
some aspects from which ones?
My contention is:
a. as overall approaches, all seem to lack the concept of
b. approaches intended for managing/configuring networks
miss the problems of an external agent trying to manage devices on the
network. The MIS people want some inherent restrictions on what the
external site can do, and in many cases, want to be able to monitor
messages being sent out to make sure that there is nothing untoward.
c. we may however, want to consider some other aspects of
the other approaches. Perhaps the coding or the notion of XML coded RPCs.
3. Is there general agreement on the use of HTTP clients operating in a
Browser-like mode as the mechanism to finesse firewall?
Please feel free to add issues!
From: TAYLOR,BOB (HP-Vancouver,ex1) [mailto:bobt at hp.com]
Sent: Thursday, February 20, 2003 3:49 PM
Subject: FW: WBMM> RE: Scope and Starting Point
3/4 4-5 EST works for me. One suggestion: Given that you only are
allocating one hour, it might be good to try to identify the issues before
then, so you might ask that everyone post them to WBMM before the meeting.
For "simple" issues, we may be able to knock them off in email, saving our
phone time for the more significant/contentious issues.
From: Wagner,William [mailto:WWagner at NetSilicon.com]
Sent: Wednesday, February 19, 2003 6:11 PM
To: wbmm at pwg.org
Subject: WBMM> RE: Scope and Starting Point
I have attached some thoughts on the use cases the WBMM should be
addressing, and taken a cut at defining a starting point. The document is
I would appreciate some feedback with the objective of finding common
within the working group. Would a conference call on 4 March, 4-5 PM EST
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...