WBMM> Comments on Harry's WSDL

WBMM> Comments on Harry's WSDL

WBMM> Comments on Harry's WSDL

Wagner,William WWagner at NetSilicon.com
Tue Jun 3 16:20:00 EDT 2003

The following are some basic comments/questions relative to the WSDL that Harry posted last week . He will not be able to join us tomorrow, but in the interests of getting some thought going on this, I trust he will not mind if we discuss this in his absence.

Also, I have posted some basic  definitions and descriptions on the FTP site at ftp://ftp.pwg.org/pub/pwg/wbmm/white/definitions1.pdf. I would be interested in comments.

Many thanks.

Bill Wagner

The following operations were proposed by Harry in his WSDL. I have indicated some questions and some additions.

ExecuteCommand  (Reset, OpPanelMessage, Off-line, LockOpPanel, DownloadCode)


1. Is the term "Attributes" the most desirable term for the management items defined in the Management Model? (I shall use "attribute" in the following as a tentative label)

2. Why are things like Reset, OpPanelMessage, Off-line, LockOpPanel, which previously were handled as management items, now in a special execute command message? Even Download code  could be handled by two items (URL and time)

3. We have agreed (I think) that for the data to be presented in the form it is to be consumed, the management data can be modeled (structured) in different ways (since it will be consumed in different ways). Would then the attribute names in the attribute list possibly identify a group as well as a specific attribute? Would then the attribute names define also the modeling?

4. If the attribute name indicates the model, and GetAll includes no arguments, I am concerned about what the response would be.

5. Understanding that MIBs appear to be in disfavor just now, the MIB OID structure does provide a effective way to tag attributes in a way that , although not secure, is concise and does not flaunt enterprise information. Furthermore, requesting attributes with a given OID prefix can request a table, a subgroup or an entire group, although following the MIB structure. The new management model is intended to provide more flexibility, not limited by the rigid MIB structure. It is not clear to me how is this would be provided, at least with this limited message  set.

6. Register Request includes as arguments: Listener, Condition and Interval. 
a. Although the meaning of this is subject to interpretation, I can conclude that this one message includes all that I had originally intended for WBMM; periodic reporting on identified parameters and asynchronous reporting of alerts, subject to conditions and moderation. I think that this message is severely overloaded. Perhaps separate alert and report notifications? Still, these  would be some heavy messages. 
b.  We had defined WBMM as a Management Interface communicating with a single  management server, not as encompassing a general notification capability. The inclusion of a "listener" argument suggests an expansion into the complexity of general notification, which was not in the use examples. Is it regarded as a necessary addition?
c. Condition, by my understanding can be quite complex, including moderation. This is identified as a string. Any notion  of the format? 

7. From the message identifications (listed below), I need some explanation of the "Async" requests.  The arguments include "attribute name" instead of "attribute list", and  "listener"










William A. Wagner (Bill Wagner)
Director of Technology
Imaging Division
NETsilicon, Inc.

More information about the Wims mailing list