I agree again with all of Bill's points and reasoning.
I am strongly opposed to introducing the concept of
'negotiation' into Schedule transfers. It doesn't exist
in any other NMS architecture I've seen.
In WBMM/WIMS, the Manager says "do this" (via an
embedded Action in a Schedule). And the Agent either
replies "fine by me" (with SendReport) or "Manager not
authorized" (with SendAlert).
I think it's important that SendReport _never_ be used
to report an Action failure. Only use SendAlert.
Ira McDonald (Musician / Software Architect)
Blue Roof Music / High North Inc
PO Box 221 Grand Marais, MI 49839
email: imcdonald at sharplabs.com
From: Wagner,William [mailto:WWagner at NetSilicon.com]
Sent: Tuesday, May 04, 2004 10:43 AM
To: Harry Lewis; wbmm at pwg.org
Subject: RE: WBMM> Couple Questions about Schedules
This brings up the question of addressing policy, one of the issues that
remains outstanding in the current spec and one of the aspects in the
responses to operations. We have touched on it in the emails.
Certainly, the agent or the managed entity operating though the agent
must be able to reject certain actions. (I had not considered rejecting
certain values, such as two frequent or too large... I think that is a
bit more complicated). There was never any intent to negotiate a
schedule. I think the last suggestion from Ira was that, in the case of
an action that is prohibited with respect to a particular managed
entity by site policy, the report dealing with that action would indicate
that the action was disallowed. That is, the response to the schedule
does not indicate that an action is disallowed. Rather, the report on
the action would indicated that is is disallowed, just as it may indicate
that the managed entity was down, or was unable to perform the action
for some other reason..
If this were a recurring action, the recurring report would indicate
it was disallowed. The management station, operating through the manager
could then modify the schedule, but it does not need to. That is,
there may be a generic schedule rather than a custom schedule developed
for each managed entity.
We would need to consider whether we need to address agent rather than
managed entity policies. That would address operations rather than
actions. My first reaction is that this is not necessary since the
Management Station is a trusted and authenticated manager. However, it is
something worth discussing. The simple solution is that the agent sends
reports according to it own limiting policy if the manager demands
anything exceeding that limit. What would happen then is that the manger
would report the agent for being non-responsive, and it would need to
be dealt with outside the protocol. With respect to too many elements, I
think any action must have a response. If the action is not performed, or
all elements identified in the action are not acted on, then this should
be in the report with a reason.
From: Harry Lewis [mailto:harryl at us.ibm.com]
Sent: Tuesday, May 04, 2004 12:55 AM
To: wbmm at pwg.org
Subject: WBMM> Couple Questions about Schedules
Couple questions / observations from internal review
1. Is there a way to negotiate a schedule? What if the agent thinks
the schedule is too frequent or the list of elements too large?
2. Can the agent refuse a schedule or a specific action in a schedule
(ex. PurgeJobs)? Is there a way to indicate this?
Chairman - IEEE-ISTO Printer Working Group
IBM Printing Systems
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...