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@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@NetSilicon.com]
Sent: Wednesday, February 19, 2003 6:11 PM
To: wbmm@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
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Feb 20 2003 - 17:03:42 EST