There will be a WIMS/PMP conference call Thursday, 9 June at 1PM, EDT.
Call-in and password numbers are the standards. Email a message to me if you
The proposed agenda is:
1. Identify Minute-taker
2. Statement that meeting is held in accord with PWG IP Policy
3. Consideration of Agenda
4. Review/Accept May 24 face-to-face minutes
5. Check on action items:
. Action: Bill to propose approach for Imaging Power MIB interoperability
. Action: Mike to post last call comments on project charters (comment made
verbally was that specific document (s) to be created for each project must
. Action: Ira to post last call comments project charters (done - see email
to wims/pmp on 6/6/2001.)
. Consider PWG Last Call status of Project charters for MFD Alerts, CIM
Printer Profile, and CMMI
. Action: Ira and Peter to formulate fax modem alerts and reflect in
Semantic Model (ONGOING, pending
. Action: Ira and Rick to generate outline for what a CIM printer profile
should contain; derive from CIM
computer system profile (OPEN, pending charter approval)
. Action: Ira to update MFD Alerts document draft (DONE)
. Action: Bill to Recast extracted data security information from MPSA User
Access Control security article as
start to MPSA Data Security article (ONGOING)
6. Consider PWG Last Call status of Project charters for MFD Alerts, CIM
Printer Profile, and CMMI
. PWG Last Call nominal period has expired without a significant
show of interest
. It has been suggested that this is because:
o The proposed charters were not in the WD directory
o The announcement was not in a form used for recent last call
. Further, Ira, as chief protagonist for these projects, indicated
that the charters of at least two did not agree with his concept of the
. Potential actions - to be done considered separately for each
o Update the charter with Ira's and Michael's comments, post in WD
directory and announce in accord with Ira's preferred method that the
charter has been updated with received comments and are again being
submitted for PWG last call comments.
o Ignore the formal approval stage and just ask the steering committee to
approve the charter as updated
o Assume that the poor response to the PWG last call reflects membership
non interest, and allow the project proposal to die.
o Only the MFD Alerts project has reasonable staffing (Ira). The CMMI
project also lists Ira as editor, but he had not volunteered to do the
entire thing. The CIM project may have Ira and Rick, but that is not clear.
I had hoped that, if the PWG , membership showed interest in a project,
there might also be some volunteers. I suggest that three projects, all done
by Ira, are both overloading him and do not represent a PWG team effort.
o There are inter-organization issues with the CIM project, and Ira
suggests that presenting the WIMS efforts to the PWG membership for
approval, even as a Best Practices document and not a standard, would
somehow preclude entering the essence of this document into the CIM
organization for processing as a DMTF/CIM standard. He points out that the
previous CIM work done by Rick and Ira was not subjected to PWG approval.
Indeed, even with major efforts that Rick made to get more PWG understanding
and involvement, there was very little of either. I suggest that, if at
least assembling the basic information cannot be an open PWG project, to be
reviewed and approved by PWG members, then it is not a suitable PWG project.
o If the charter is resubmitted to the PWG membership, does the last call
period again need to overlap a face-to-face meeting?
7. Consider Imaging Power MIB interoperability
I will have some note out on this later. I will suggest a PWG survey to
collect information on members interest and agreement in:
o Have a interoperability event
o Time Frame
o Having it in terms of a self performed demonstration on the member's
site, at member's convenience, providing a paper trail for evaluation (or
alternative of having it in conjunction with a face-to-face, maybe with VPN
connections to actual devices?)
o Interest in what is to be demonstrated and to what degree
o Just MIB walk showing what objects are supported
o Showing reported values agree with actual power state
o Doing exercising test of recommended and optional elements as well as
o Including exercising of SNMPv2 RowStatus elements to create, destroy
rows, or just
o Writing to objects in rows created by some other mechanism
o What tools/SNMP utilities would be acceptable
8. Next Steps - Action Items
o Action of each of three Project Charters
o Action on Imaging Power MIB Interoperability demonstration.
Bill Wagner, Chairman - Workgroup for Imaging Management Solutions/PWG
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...