Many thanks to Harry for the quick delivery of minutes. Two other items that should be noted:
a. New (non-MIB) Information Model: there was strong feeling in favor and the general sense that the MIB structure does not lend itself to properly describing the new imaging services. In response to a request to document requirements on this model, it was proposed that members contribute their ideas to the mail list. I would hope that these can be presented and discussed so that we have a good set by the next conference call. Perhaps Cathy can assemble these as they come in.
b. Cathy had sent out an alternate scope and set of scenarios. We discussed them a little, and developed the requirement that a monitor must be able to request that the management interface make a connection, with the timing being more severe than the previously stated requirement that the Monitor be able to send the management interface a schedule indicating when the interface is to initiate contact. These scenarios should be studied (along with those that I have previously sent) for validity, applicability and implications. Hopefully we can have a discussion on the wire and I will try to reflect the sense of the group in an integrated scope and scenarios for discussion on the next conference call.
Many thanks to all participants. However, we are also need contribution from those that were unable to call in.
Bill Wagner, NetSilicon
From: Harry Lewis [mailto:harryl at us.ibm.com]
Sent: Tuesday, March 04, 2003 5:28 PM
To: wbmm at pwg.org
Subject: WBMM> Minutes from March 4 conf call
I'm probably the worst "minute" taker but here is what I caught from the conference call. Thanks to all the participants for your interest in helping work out the initial direction, goals, requirements etc.
Who was there?
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.
Question - Extra vs Intra net operation?
Agreement - Yes, both are valid goals. Prefer not to have distinct protocols, operations etc. for outside vs inside the firewall
Non-MIB information Model
Question - Why (Why not) create new MIBs?
"For" MIB - Strong datatyping, legacy, familiarity
"Against" MIB - PSI experience handling datatyping (just don't redefine NMTOKEN, INTEGER etc.), Want to manage the enterprise (SNMP, NPAP, CIM etc.), New and different things to manage (ex. services).
Agreement - Will need to map Printer MIB (Fin MIB etc) to whatever model WBMM ends up with, Separate protocol and operational binding from data model,
Open - Still not closed on this topic
HTTP over port 80
Question - IANA port for WBMM
Agreement - yes... but consider other bindings (SMTP etc) also
Question - What activities to align with
Agreement - look at RFCs (Ira's note), Look at IPP requirements for administrative operations, Look at CIM (who are migrating to SOAP/WSDL)
Question - How does (outside) management application initiate a management session (ex. e-mail SOAP message requesting device to contact manager).
Sequence of activities
Question - Should we first concentrate on mapping the Printer MIB to XML (directly) as opposed to starting to define a new model?
Agreement - We should break down our tasks prior to sequencing them.
March 18 4pm-5pm EST.
IBM Printing Systems
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...