Nothing in the charter leads me to believe my perspective on remote
management to the same granularity as currently available via SNMP is
excluded or out of scope. I suggest we continue to strive for consensus
and make appropriate modifications or clarifications to the charter before
sending out for approval.
I'd like to hear from some others.
----------------------------------------------
Harry Lewis
IBM Printing Systems
----------------------------------------------
"Wagner,William" <WWagner@NetSilicon.com>
Sent by: owner-wbmm@pwg.org
01/28/2003 04:30 PM
To: Harry Lewis/Boulder/IBM@IBMUS, <wbmm@pwg.org>
cc:
Subject: RE: WBMM> Management Commands
Harry,
Your comments reflect a different perspective on the activity, or at
least on the priorities. It seems that you see the effort as a general
replacement for SNMP, perhaps defining some replacement to the MIBs.
What I see as the most pressing need is to provide for remote access to
existing data bases, be they MIBs or the data current accessed by web
pages, or some internal parameters.
I also do not see this in terms of a management station canvassing to see
what device supports what. In general, I do not think that that sort of
fishing would be allowed in many enterprises. Rather, I see the
device being registered with the remote server to provide reposts
according to some pre-arraigned agreement on what parameters would be
monitored. Indeed, the idea was to define the transport and a general
formal by which elements could be queried or specified. Although items
such as you mention (size of media in trays) would not be excluded, it
does not seem the sort of thing that would be of interest to a remote
server. I will post the list of things brainstormed at the BOF.
I intended the proposed Charter to be clear that this activity was to
use the path intended for web browsing to allow authorized
but non-enterprise agencies to monitor (for usage information, for
example) and perhaps do specific maintenance (for updates or upgrades,
for example) to on-enterprise site equipment. it was not the intent that
this be a general SNMP replacement. Perhaps you may want to look at the
charter again before we send it out for final approval. ( I have attached
the draft as modified at Maui). By the way, the title is Charter Proposal
for PWG WEB-Based Monitoring and Management, hence WBMM.
Bill Wagner
-----Original Message-----
From: Harry Lewis [mailto:harryl@us.ibm.com]
Sent: Monday, January 27, 2003 2:46 PM
To: wbmm@pwg.org
Subject: WBMM> Management Commands
SNMP has GET, SET, GETBULK etc. What types of commands would we like to
see in WBMM (what does WBMM stand for, anyway!?... perhaps separate
discussion... aren't we forgetting the U word... "Universal Deice and
Services Management")
Back to the topic...
I'm thinking we will want to improve on the interfaces and commands based
on what we have learned over the years implementing the Printer MIB.
Please share your thoughts. Here are some of mine. We need...
1. A way to query what attributes are settable and which are not (we
learned, with SNMP, that "MaxAccess" isn't always that helpful).
2. A way to query attribute (elements?) either singularly (tell me size of
media in "main" tray), in bulk (give me the "input group"), or filtered
(tell me the name of each tray; tell me all trays which are loaded with
transparency).
3. If we end up with mandatory and optional commands or interfaces, a way
to query which are supported in a particular implementation (describe via
WSIL/WSDL?).
----------------------------------------------
Harry Lewis
IBM Printing Systems
----------------------------------------------
#### Charter Proposal 2.doc has been removed from this note on January 28,
2003 by Harry Lewis
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Jan 29 2003 - 00:20:24 EST