1.a: I don't think we have alignment yet on whether this is for "external"
agents only, or for internal & external. IMHO, if we're going to the
trouble to define a new protocol/model for "external" that is going to
eventually cover most of what we use SNMP for internally, I want to be able
to use it internally as well. We want to be able to leverage, scale &
distribute tools for management - forcing a completely different protocol
when you cross the firewall makes this really difficult.
1.b: I agree with Harry's comments.
2: We should at the least be aware of these efforts - and where possible
leverage off of them. I wouldn't, though, delay our progress to align with
them - and in fact if we make good progress, we may want to push some of our
ideas into these forums.
3: I think we need to talk about the kinds of clients that we expect to use
this. While some may be "browsers", I certainly expect this protocol to be
used by dedicated management tools (e.g., WebJetAdmin, etc.) and by
automated systems. If it's just external "browsers" talking across
firewalls, I'm not sure we need to define any "protocol" at all - in effect,
firewall is serving up web content over an HTTPS: connection. It's only
when you're doing more "programmatic" tools that you really need a robust
protocol - and though these tools may be accessed through a browser (e.g.,
something running on an app server), the protocols used in these cases may
not be very browser like - though they may use HTTPS, etc. to get through
I'll be sending a separate message with an explanation of how I'm thinking
about the problem - as I write this up, I may find more issues and will
bring them up then.
IPG Strategic Technology Development
mailto:robertt at vcd.hp.com <mailto:robertt at vcd.hp.com>
From: Harry Lewis [mailto:harryl at us.ibm.com]
Sent: Saturday, February 22, 2003 9:57 PM
Cc: 'Wbmm (E-mail)
Subject: RE: WBMM> RE: Scope and Starting Point
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,
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 rest.
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 ground
within the working group. Would a conference call on 4 March, 4-5 PM EST be
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...