WBMM> RE: Scope and Starting Point

WBMM> RE: Scope and Starting Point

WBMM> RE: Scope and Starting Point

Harry Lewis harryl at us.ibm.com
Sun Feb 23 00:56:50 EST 2003

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 

Harry Lewis 
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 
finessing firewalls
                 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!

Many thanks,

Bill Wagner/NetSilicon

-----Original Message-----
From: TAYLOR,BOB (HP-Vancouver,ex1) [mailto:bobt at hp.com]
Sent: Thursday, February 20, 2003 3:49 PM
To: Wagner,William
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.


-----Original Message-----
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
posted to:

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 

Bill Wagner

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.pwg.org/archives/wims/attachments/20030222/5e136123/attachment-0001.html

More information about the Wims mailing list