WBMM> Operations

WBMM> Operations

WBMM> Operations

Harry Lewis harryl at us.ibm.com
Fri Sep 5 13:12:20 EDT 2003


So the list of operations I currently have is 

Disable
Enable
Pause
Resume
Activate
Purge
Reset
PowerOff
GetAttributes
SetAttributes
GetResource
SetResource
Register
Unregister

We are still toying with the concept of an "Execute" for extensibility if 
nothing else (right?)

And this current thread is about adding GetSchedule, SendReport, and 
SendNotification (or SendAlert)

Right?

Should we be considering Schedule as a Resource (GetResource vs Get 
Schedule)? Is a report really GetAttributes?
---------------------------------------------- 
Harry Lewis 
Chairman - IEEE-ISTO Printer Working Group
http://www.pwg.org
IBM Printing Systems 
http://www.ibm.com/printers
303-924-5337
---------------------------------------------- 



"McDonald, Ira" <imcdonald at sharplabs.com> 
Sent by: owner-wbmm at pwg.org
09/05/2003 10:12 AM

To
"'Wagner,William'" <WWagner at NetSilicon.com>, "McDonald, Ira" 
<imcdonald at sharplabs.com>, wbmm at pwg.org
cc

Subject
RE: WBMM> Operations






Hi Bill,

IPP "SendNotification" is used for Printer alerts (not just
Job notifications).  If we keep both, then the PWG Semantic
Model has to model them both and clarify when to use one
or the other.

And if a "routine" notification is sent to a WBMM Manager,
then it's not properly an alert (an exception notification),
right?

Cheers,
- Ira


-----Original Message-----
From: Wagner,William [mailto:WWagner at NetSilicon.com]
Sent: Friday, September 05, 2003 10:19 AM
To: McDonald, Ira; wbmm at pwg.org
Subject: RE: WBMM> Operations


Ira,

I  toyed with  both "accept'  and  "Send".   I guess I left it thinking of
these  as commands,  with  the  result  indicated. I have  no  problem 
with
the  "SendReport".  approach and agree that it is better.

I still think that the  WBMM "SendAlert" is, at most, a special case of 
the
more general "SendNotification"  both in content and use (I could not see 
a
WBMM Managment Application
 being notified  when a job was done, let alone when each page drops).
Although there  may be some similarity, I think it better to preserve a 
name
distinction. 

Bill Wagner

-----Original Message-----
From: McDonald, Ira [mailto:imcdonald at sharplabs.com]
Sent: Thursday, September 04, 2003 1:36 PM
To: Wagner,William; wbmm at pwg.org
Subject: RE: WBMM> Operations


Hi Bill,

Comments about your operation names:

(1) 'GetSchedule' is fine.
(2) 'AcceptReport' I don't like - the verb should describe the action
    of the Sender - I suggest (following IPP Notifications) we use
    'SendReport'.
(3) 'AcceptAlert' - same comment - I suggest 'SendAlert' or (closer
    to IPP Notifications) 'SendNotification'.

Cheers,
- Ira McDonald
  High North Inc

PS - I actually _am_ working on XML schema for a Schedule object and 
an Action object (row in a schedule).  I'm looking at the very mature
IETF Schedule MIB (RFC 3231, October 2002, which obsoletes RFC 2591):

"Abstract

   This memo defines a portion of the Management Information Base (MIB)
   for use with network management protocols in the Internet community.
   In particular, it describes a set of managed objects that are used to
   schedule management operations periodically or at specified dates and
   times."


-----Original Message-----
From: Wagner,William [mailto:WWagner at NetSilicon.com]
Sent: Wednesday, August 27, 2003 1:37 PM
To: wbmm at pwg.org
Subject: WBMM> Operations


Ira,

Considering what  I  was calling  the "connections" as the  initial
operations requested in the  Post by  the  managed  object, these
operations  would  be called;

Get  Schedule  (arguments  include  ID  of  device  or proxy  [which
represents  a  group  of  devices])
(Accept) Periodic report
(Accept) Alert Report  (notification)

 The schedule  would  consist  of  one  or  more of  what we have been
previously calling  operation  requests  (e.g.,  get  element), qualified
by time,  condition and (to accommodate  proxies)  actual  managed  object
ID.  The time could be immediate,  in which  case  you  would have the
exchange:
 
Managed Object
Manager
Open connection or  send initial mail  message
                                ----------------------Get
Schedule------------------------------>

                              <----Schedule  (get-element X, device y,
immediate)---
 
                              -----Accept  Report  (element X value, 
device
y)--------->

                              <---------------------------Report
Accepted------------------------

                               ----------------------Get
Schedule------------------------------>

                               <-------Schedule (send next Get  Schedule
[time], end)-----

close connection  or  cease POP polling



Perhaps  we  could also  allow that  a Schedule can be the response  to an
Accept  Report. That would simplify an exchange to:

Managed Object
Manager
                                ----------------------Get
Schedule------------------------------>

                              <----Schedule  (get-element X, device y,
immediate)---
 
                              -----Accept  Report  (element X value, 
device
y)--------->

                              <----Schedule  (get-element Z, device y,
immediate)---
 
                              -----Accept  Report  (element X value, 
device
y)--------->
 
                               <-------Schedule (send next Get  Schedule
[time], end)-----


I   am uncertain  if  we  can represent  the  operation  commands 
contained
within the Get  Schedule  operation response in the same was as  the  Get
Schedule, Accept  Report and Accept Alert operations.

Bill  Wagner

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.pwg.org/archives/wims/attachments/20030905/5bd661da/attachment-0001.html


More information about the Wims mailing list