Sorry,my previous message was somehow truncated. I have removed the stated requirements to an attachment.
Harry is quite correct with regard to the PWG process; the outline of requirements is to be done before the charter. And the requirements were presented in November. Perhaps Harry and Cathy are suggesting starting up an associated but different working group that the WBMM, or perhaps a different activity of the group.
I had presented an outline of requirements at the November PWG meeting, and this presentation has been on the PWG site for several months, ( ftp.pwg.org/pub/pwg/wsm/R <ftp://ftp.pwg.org/pub/pwg/wsm/R&A.ppt> &A.ppt, now at ftp.pwg.org/pub/pwg/wbmm/presentations/R <ftp://ftp.pwg.org/pub/pwg/wbmm/presentations/R&A.ppt> &A.ppt)
Following procedure, the charted draft reflected the objectives to address the expressed requirements. Indeed, the requirements presentation reflected the problems statements that had been presented and documented in previous Plenary meetings.
An MS Word version of the requirements document is attached.
The document does suggest XML coding, SOAP, etc, not as requirements but as suggested parts of a solution.
It is important to distinguish requirements from solutions, and to justify requirements. For example, one of Harry's requirements was:
"More expressive that the Printer MIBs"
This may be characteristic of a proposed solution. But what is the problem being addressed?
Indeed, my difficulty with many of the newly proposed requirements is that they address a different problem than web based monitoring and management of devices and services. They refer to a "new model" and to a MIB replacement. These may be fine objectives but their need for web based management has not been established. Indeed, making them required parts of the solution is contrary to an implicit requirement that this solution be applicable to the installed equipment base. At any rate, I fail to see in what way a replacement to the MIB structure is necessary or even applicable.
To make this interaction more fruitful, I respectfully request that potential participants in the WBMM working group express whether their immediate objective is in coming up with:
a. a MIB replacement and a restructuring of the device model or
b. a solution to the problem of communicating management data (derived from whatever source) over the internet, using the existing WEB infrastructure.
I also request that contributors look at the previously stated requirements. We will make more progress if we work from the stated requirements rather than propose conflicting ones, or to propose solutions to undefined requirements.
Many Thanks,
Bill Wagner
William A. Wagner (Bill Wagner)
Director of Technology
Imaging Division
NETsilicon, Inc.
781-398-4588
-----Original Message-----
From: MARKLE,CATHY (HP-Boise,ex1) [mailto:cathy_markle@hp.com]
Sent: Thursday, January 30, 2003 7:53 PM
To: 'Harry Lewis'; wbmm@pwg.org
Subject: RE: WBMM> WBMM Requirements
Thanks for the start Harry. I would also like to add some ideas regarding the XML and MIB points you mention.
1. The new model should be structured around how the data is consumed by applications as opposed to how a device is physically built.
2. It should take advantage of XML's ability to describe (and enforce) structure
3. It should be extensible so that vendors can add their own extensions. We should provide a defined path for vendors to provide updates to the model as needed. (Maintenance?)
4. It should be organized in a manner that a group of related data can be accessed all at once.
5. It should take into account other efforts that are happening in other standards areas to leverage learnings in these areas where beneficial and to not cause conflict in overlapping areas whenever possible.
I also think we should address the access protocol.
1. Use SOAP
- SOAP supports both an RPC and document based model.
- Currently, use SOAP over HTTP but it is not limited to this
- WSDL exists to describe SOAP services
- Directory and discovery services exist to support the SOAP protocol (for example UDDI)
- SOAP is also usable by the wide variety of applications that Harry mentions below.
-----Original Message-----
From: Harry Lewis [mailto:harryl@us.ibm.com]
Sent: Thursday, January 30, 2003 5:25 PM
To: wbmm@pwg.org
Subject: WBMM> WBMM Requiements
The PWG process (diagram) acknowlesd Brainstorming, Charter development and Requirments gathering as valid actiities at the origin of a new program. I'd like to begin a requirements thread. Here are requirements of WBMM that I would like to see addressed
1. More expressive than the Printer MIB
- While the Printer MIB is an EXCELLENT standard from the point of view of adoption and functionality... there is room for improvment
- Specifically, we could be more expressive and clearer regarding State, Status and Error reaaons.
- You who are smiling know what I'm talking about (i.e. nix the decoder ring...)
2. Expressed in XML
- More than a clique, XML will aid developers in designing and implementing compliant applicatins with modern tools
3 Usable by a wide variety of applications
- Experience with the Printer MIB has demonstrated that the range of interested applications includes
- Device Management
- Accounting
- Enterprise Managemtn
- Remote Serviceing and Help Desk
- Self configuring Drivers
4. Optomized for interoperatility
- Care should be given to the use of mandatory and optional
- Min/Max access to settable attributes should not be a mystery
- Consider a self describing data model vs. embedding definitions in the protocol
5. More... I'm sure. Please join in...
----------------------------------------------
Harry Lewis
IBM Printing Systems
----------------------------------------------
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Jan 31 2003 - 13:45:18 EST