WBMM> Comments on Harry's WSDL

WBMM> Comments on Harry's WSDL

WBMM> Comments on Harry's WSDL

McDonald, Ira imcdonald at sharplabs.com
Tue Jun 3 21:14:38 EDT 2003

Hi folks,

Back in 1999, Carl Kugler (IBM), Harry Lewis (IBM), and Tom Hastings
(Xerox) collaborated to write a first draft of IPP Device Operations
(30 pages, 122 KB) at:


Defined in this spec in Table 1 (see first one-page PDF attachment) 
is a set of Device admin operations that correspond closely to the
equivalent IPP Printer (i.e., Service) operations in IPP/1.1.  Also
defined in Table 3 (see second one-page PDF attachment) is a brief
description of each Device admin operation (e.g., 'Reset-Device'
and 'Power-Off-Device').

Tom Hastings and I also wrote an analysis of possible attributes for a
minimal IPP Device object.  We reviewed 192 IPP Printer or Printer MIB
candidate attributes and we proposed 23 REQUIRED and 10 OPTIONAL
Device object attributes.  This white paper (7 pages, 48 KB) is at:


That is, the process of winnowing the 176 attributes in the Printer MIB
into the essential ones for Device Admin has already been done once.

Please take a look at the two small attachments (and short specs, if

- Ira McDonald
  High North Inc

-----Original Message-----
From: Wagner,William [mailto:WWagner at NetSilicon.com]
Sent: Tuesday, June 03, 2003 4:20 PM
To: wbmm at pwg.org
Subject: WBMM> Comments on Harry's WSDL

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

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.

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: ipp-ops-set3-991208(10).pdf
Type: application/octet-stream
Size: 20133 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://www.pwg.org/archives/wims/attachments/20030603/713cd1ef/ipp-ops-set3-99120810-0001.obj
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: ipp-ops-set3-991208(19).pdf
Type: application/octet-stream
Size: 19780 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://www.pwg.org/archives/wims/attachments/20030603/713cd1ef/ipp-ops-set3-99120819-0001.obj

More information about the Wims mailing list