This is just clarifying that (as per Bill's previous notes), the
time of WBMM telecon is:
4pm EST / 1pm PST Tuesday 4 March
- Ira McDonald
High North Inc
From: Wagner,William [mailto:WWagner at NetSilicon.com]
Sent: Friday, February 28, 2003 10:22 AM
To: 'Wbmm (E-mail)
Subject: WBMM>Tues 4 March 4pm EST Scope and Starting Point Conference call
There will be a WBMM telephone conference call.
Time: 4:00 PM 4 March 2003
Call-in US: 1-877-628-1350
Call-in International: 1-712-421-1160
Participant Identification number: 415259
Review of Agenda
Review/modify list of issues
1. WBMM Objective
2. Necessity of new management Model to replace MIBS
3. Management Interface Client/Monitor Server Architecture using
HTTP over port 80
4. Need for alignment with other similar or related activities.
statement of Issue
Next conference call
Review of action items
Discussion of Issues
Is the WBMM objective just to support extra-enterprise data acquisition
facilities as described in the proposed charter, or also to support as of
yet undefined intra enterprise management capabilities on the level at or
exceeding existing SNMP capabilities?
A. pro position:
1. 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.
2. It would be good to address some of the scars remaining with the
printer MIB as we define a new protocol, data format etc., taken from a
client [consumer] view this time around
B. Con position
1. it is not clear that we need to design a new printer (or imaging
device) management model for the extra-enterprise function of WBMM. The
contention that since we are doing it anyway, lets add a requirement that
makes the new model necessary, is a circular argument
2. the requirements for limited external management are very different
and in some cases contradictory to the requirements for internal local
device (or service)management
C. Possible compromise
If it is decided that the intra enterprise functionality is necessary or
that a dual use is efficient and desirable, the efforts may be partitioned
both in development and in operation so that the differing requirements can
be addressed separately and implemented independently.
D. Action Items: Need a definition of use instances and a consideration of
requirements and restrictions for intra-enterprise application
Is the definition of a new imaging device/service model, at a level to to
replace the MIB, a necessary part of the WBMM effort?
A. Pro position:
1. I want to see us working on a replacement for SNMP and the MIB to
give us a solution that works inside the firewall as well as outside the
2. We want something more expressive and clearer regarding State, Status
and Error reasons than the Printer MIB
B Con Position
1. Although it may be a worthy objective in itself, definition of a new
model is not necessary to satisfy the defined use cases.
2. The WBMM approach must be compatible with the existing equipment base
in content if not format. The Monitor, in expressing the information to be
gathered form a particular device or service, must be able to give a proxy
management interface sufficient information about how to acquire this
information so that the proxy can extract it via SNMP, HTTP, a serial
connection or whatever without preknowledge in the proxy of the specific
form or format that the device or service uses.
3. Definition of a model to cover printers, copiers, multi-function
devices, scanners, print/scan services etc is a monumental task
C. Possible Compromise
Same as for Issue 1. Regardless, the message format between the monitor and
the management interface must be flexible enough to be able to define what
the management agent must do regardless of the management model used in
either the Monitor or the monitored device/service.
1. Define the requirements of the new model, and investigate how this
would apply to various imaging devices/services
2. If the requirement includes interface with user applications, define
the additional detailed requirements imposed by that.
For the extra-enterprise mode, there appears to be agreement on the
Management interfaces operation as HTTP clients on TCP port 80, and the
Monitor acting as a server.
1. Should alternate ports be allowed, suggested?
2. Should the capability be made compatible with alternate transports?
3. If WBMM includes intra-enterprise capability, is this also the
optimum configuration in that mode as well?
Extensive positions on these items have not been voiced.
Issue 4 To what extent as alignment with the approach of other related
There appears agreement that the WG should keep abreast of related
activities in the IETF and DMTF. There is also the suggestion that some
cross-participation and communication to the other groups may be desirable.
But the basic contention is that the WG has no inherent obligation to be
compatible with any other activities. Nevertheless, some degree of
compatibility is desirable in the extra-enterprise mode since the use of
these alternate local methods may be necessary for collecting the necessary
data. In the intra-enterprise mode, it appears that the activity may
actually be in competition with other management protocols being developed,
and it would be desirable to allow implementers to leverage their work on
one protocol to support the others.
Please communicate if you have additional agenda items or would like to add
basic issues for discussion.
This list has about 30 subscribers. We hope to have good participation on
Bill Wagner/NetSilicon, a Digi International Company