re "I think it's wildly unlikely that this tail (the printer industry) is
going to wag that dog (the systems management industry)." - I agree, but I
think we often don't take the opportunity to influence when we can. In
places where we have unique needs or may be "ahead of the curve", I'd like
to see "us" be a notch more aggressive in making sure the broader industry
solutions work for us.
bt
> -----Original Message-----
> From: McDonald, Ira [mailto:imcdonald at sharplabs.com]
> Sent: Thursday, February 27, 2003 7:18 AM
> To: 'TAYLOR,BOB (HP-Vancouver,ex1)'; 'Harry Lewis'; Wagner,William
> Cc: 'Wbmm (E-mail)
> Subject: RE: WBMM> RE: Scope and Starting Point
>>> Hi,
>> I agree with all of Bob Taylor's and Harry Lewis's comments
> below, except for Bob's comment at (2). I think it's wildly
> unlikely that this tail (the printer industry) is going to
> wag that dog (the systems management industry).
>> I especially like Bob's observation that the "external
> service agent" model should NOT be the only design center
> for WBMM.
>> Please note that the assumption that SNMP is only "internal"
> is far out-of-date. SNMPv3 with strong security has been
> used by service providers for several years now to manage
> routers in their clients' enterprise networks. Now that
> SNMPv3 is full Internet Standard and SNMPv1 has been dropped
> from the Internet 'standards track' (it's status Historic),
> there will be an increasing number of peripheral devices
> (like printers) that follow the lead of the infrastructure
> devices (because of pressure from customers), I suspect.
>> Cheers,
> - Ira McDonald
> High North Inc
>>>> -----Original Message-----
> From: TAYLOR,BOB (HP-Vancouver,ex1) [mailto:bobt at hp.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, February 26, 2003 7:39 PM
> To: 'Harry Lewis'; Wagner,William
> Cc: 'Wbmm (E-mail)
> Subject: RE: WBMM> RE: Scope and Starting Point
>>> 1.a: I don't think we have alignment yet on whether this is
> for "external"
> agents only, or for internal & external. IMHO, if we're going to the
> trouble to define a new protocol/model for "external" that is going to
> eventually cover most of what we use SNMP for internally, I
> want to be able
> to use it internally as well. We want to be able to leverage, scale &
> distribute tools for management - forcing a completely
> different protocol
> when you cross the firewall makes this really difficult.
> 1.b: I agree with Harry's comments.
>> 2: We should at the least be aware of these efforts - and
> where possible
> leverage off of them. I wouldn't, though, delay our progress
> to align with
> them - and in fact if we make good progress, we may want to
> push some of our
> ideas into these forums.
>> 3: I think we need to talk about the kinds of clients that we
> expect to use
> this. While some may be "browsers", I certainly expect this
> protocol to be
> used by dedicated management tools (e.g., WebJetAdmin, etc.) and by
> automated systems. If it's just external "browsers" talking across
> firewalls, I'm not sure we need to define any "protocol" at
> all - in effect,
> your "protocol" is just HTML/Javascript, and an application inside the
> firewall is serving up web content over an HTTPS: connection.
> It's only
> when you're doing more "programmatic" tools that you really
> need a robust
> protocol - and though these tools may be accessed through a
> browser (e.g.,
> something running on an app server), the protocols used in
> these cases may
> not be very browser like - though they may use HTTPS, etc. to
> get through
> firewalls.
>> I'll be sending a separate message with an explanation of how
> I'm thinking
> about the problem - as I write this up, I may find more
> issues and will
> bring them up then.
>> thanks,
>> bt
>> ---------------------------------------------------
> Bob Taylor
> Senior Architect
> IPG Strategic Technology Development
> Hewlett-Packard Co.
> mailto:robertt at vcd.hp.com> phone: 360.212.2625/T212.2625
> fax: 208.730-5111
> ---------------------------------------------------
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Harry Lewis [mailto:harryl at us.ibm.com]
> Sent: Saturday, February 22, 2003 9:57 PM
> To: Wagner,William
> Cc: 'Wbmm (E-mail)
> Subject: RE: WBMM> RE: Scope and Starting Point
>>>> 1.a. - I agree... but I have a feeling I'm reading more into
> ("etc.") than
> you may. You've listed usage, alerts, diagnostics, configuration,
> downloading resources, downloading executables (presumably
> diagnostic or
> interrogative in nature) and upgrading (remotely)... there
> seems to be very
> little remaining that is done via SNMP today... so why not
> include "the
> rest" ... like taking the device off-line, reading or writing
> the OpPanel,
> ... "ETC...".?
> 1. b. - Yes, I've expressed several times that I believe we
> should address
> the semantics for device management - just as we've recently
> done for job
> submission and management and we should specifically try to
> clean up some
> of the toxic waste we spilled in the status area during the
> early MIB days
> ("magic decoder ring", "agent orange" ).
>> 2. I think we should make ourselves aware of existing or
> emerging standards
> in the area. I don't think we should force alignment or
> compliance unless we
> can clearly articulate the benefit and honestly feel there is
> a very good
> chance that alignment will result in adoption. While the
> Printer MIB is
> probably one of the most useful standards ever in terms of
> heterogeneous
> printer management, most of the pretzel twists we encountered
> to align with
> a larger cause never really achieved the hoped for result (my
> opinion).
>> I feel we should leverage our own positive model and
> experience with the
> semantic model. No one questions whether SM is the right
> thing to do. The SM
> springboards from our most recent job protocol... IPP into the web
> environment and does facilitate firewall scenarios I view
> WBMM as doing the
> same thing... springboard off Printer, Finisher MIBs onto web
> protocols via
> a common (device) semantic model.
>> 3. We need to nail this firewall discussion early. I do agree
> that we want
> to facilitate solutions that can cross the firewall...
> similar to the way
> we've done PSI. I hear others reacting to this requirement as
> if it is an
> inappropriate goal. This will drag on and haunt us later if
> not put to rest.
>>> ----------------------------------------------
> Harry Lewis
> IBM Printing Systems
> ----------------------------------------------
>>> "Wagner,William" <WWagner at NetSilicon.com>
> Sent by: owner-wbmm at pwg.org> 02/20/2003 03:03 PM
> To: "'Wbmm (E-mail)" <wbmm at pwg.org>
> cc:
> Subject: RE: WBMM> RE: Scope and Starting Point
>>>>>> Bob Tailor had a very good suggestion. "..try to identify
> the issues before
> [the conference call]
> so you might ask that everyone post them to WBMM before the
> meeting. For
> "simple" issues, we may be able to knock them off in email,
> saving our phone
> time for the more significant/contentious issues."
>> I had intended that sort of thing in asking for comments on
> the write-up (or
> any other comments that were felt to be germane). But an
> explicit request
> may be more fruitful.
>> Please forward your issues to the list!
>> Lets start with a few that I see.
>> 1. Basic purpose: I have defined it as access by an external agent to
> imaging devices on an enterprise network, for the purpose of
> monitoring
> usage and alerts, perhaps for doing maintenance tests and general
> configuration, and perhaps for downloading files including
> executables,
> fonts, upgrades, etc.
> a. Do we have agreement on this?
> b. Is there a strong feeing that the scope
> must be expanded,
> and if so, how?
>> 2. Consideration of the approaches in the documents
> referenced by Ira, Lee
> and Don (thank you all). Should we embrace, ignore, or
> possibly extract some
> aspects from which ones?
> My contention is:
> a. as overall approaches, all seem to lack
> the concept of
> finessing firewalls
> b. approaches intended for
> managing/configuring networks
> miss the problems of an external agent trying to manage devices on the
> network. The MIS people want some inherent restrictions on
> what the external
> site can do, and in many cases, want to be able to monitor
> messages being
> sent out to make sure that there is nothing untoward.
> c. we may however, want to consider some
> other aspects of
> the other approaches. Perhaps the coding or the notion of XML
> coded RPCs.
>> 3. Is there general agreement on the use of HTTP clients
> operating in a
> Browser-like mode as the mechanism to finesse firewall?
>> Please feel free to add issues!
>> Many thanks,
>> Bill Wagner/NetSilicon
>>>> -----Original Message-----
> From: TAYLOR,BOB (HP-Vancouver,ex1) [mailto:bobt at hp.com]
> Sent: Thursday, February 20, 2003 3:49 PM
> To: Wagner,William
> Subject: FW: WBMM> RE: Scope and Starting Point
>>> 3/4 4-5 EST works for me. One suggestion: Given that you only are
> allocating one hour, it might be good to try to identify the
> issues before
> then, so you might ask that everyone post them to WBMM before
> the meeting.
> For "simple" issues, we may be able to knock them off in
> email, saving our
> phone time for the more significant/contentious issues.
>> bt
>> -----Original Message-----
> From: Wagner,William [mailto:WWagner at NetSilicon.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, February 19, 2003 6:11 PM
> To: wbmm at pwg.org> Subject: WBMM> RE: Scope and Starting Point
>>>>> Greetings:
>> I have attached some thoughts on the use cases the WBMM should be
> addressing, and taken a cut at defining a starting point.
> The document is
> posted to:
>ftp://ftp.pwg.org/pub/pwg/wbmm/white/wbmm_Scope&Start.pdf>> I would appreciate some feedback with the objective of
> finding common ground
> within the working group. Would a conference call on 4
> March, 4-5 PM EST be
> agreeable?
>>>> Bill Wagner
>