Yes, I'm OK with shipping PSI implementations w/o standards-based mgt for
services... if it means solving the extranet device management problem in
a more timely manner and with the plan that we take on services next. If
we muster enough collective resource to swallow the whole watermelon...
that's fine too... as long as we don't choke.
----------------------------------------------
Harry Lewis
Chairman - IEEE-ISTO Printer Working Group
http://www.pwg.org
IBM Printing Systems
http://www.ibm.com/printers
303-924-5337
----------------------------------------------
"McDonald, Ira" <imcdonald@sharplabs.com>
Sent by: owner-wbmm@pwg.org
07/24/2003 10:44 AM
To
Harry Lewis/Boulder/IBM@IBMUS, wbmm@pwg.org
cc
Subject
RE: WBMM> Queues
Hi Harry,
Apparently we want to focus on WBMM device management first
(per most of our WBMM discussions).
However, that doesn't do PSI any particular good, which still
would require the box labelled "and then a miracle happens"
to get a PSI Print Service (or Target Device) installed or
reconfigured after installation.
Do we care that all PSI implementations will ship without
standards-based management for several more years?
Cheers,
- Ira McDonald
High North Inc
-----Original Message-----
From: Harry Lewis [mailto:harryl@us.ibm.com]
Sent: Wednesday, July 23, 2003 11:38 PM
To: wbmm@pwg.org
Subject: WBMM> Queues
Sorry I missed the call. On the topic of queue management. I've no
objection
to adding this but wonder if it might warrant some subsetting of WBMM. Are
you going to have to be able to manage queues to be WBMM compliant? Don't
we
want to focus on solving the device management problem first, and then
move
on to queue management?
----------------------------------------------
Harry Lewis
Chairman - IEEE-ISTO Printer Working Group
http://www.pwg.org
IBM Printing Systems
http://www.ibm.com/printers
303-924-5337
----------------------------------------------
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Jul 24 2003 - 15:11:58 EDT