I can certainly think of "remote" service cases where set and queue
management would be appropriate. IMHO, we should not fundamentally declare
in the spec what can and cannot be done over a firewall or across a domain:
this is exactly what our authentication scheme should do. Many customers
may not allow set or queue management externally, but many will.
As for whether NetSilicon should implement set and/or queue management for
proxy solutions, if they are "required" for whatever profile of WBMM you are
supporting, you should implement them - but if you are sure that your
customers will never allow you to expose them to an external client, you
could make them stub implementations that always returned "not authorized".
This would allow you to deliver the solution your customers want without
unnecessarily binding other WBMM use cases.
bt
-----Original Message-----
From: Wagner,William [mailto:WWagner@NetSilicon.com]
Sent: Thursday, July 24, 2003 12:04 PM
To: Harry Lewis
Cc: TAYLOR,BOB (HP-Vancouver,ex1); McDonald, Ira; wbmm@pwg.org
Subject: RE: WBMM> Queues
Harry,
One of the most immediate applications of WBMM, for which no standard
capability now exists, is in remote monitoring. In general, any set
operation (and many get operations) must be disallowed for enterprise
security and confidentiality purposes. If one is producing proxy devices to
support such a capability (as NetSilicon is), it would be absurd to
require support of operations that could never be used. Now, it is not
clear how important full compliance to a PWG spec is, but if
compliance requires supporting a whole set of unusable operations, it will
become meaningless.
I also have suggested partitioning this effort, although not along the
same lines. I think we should encourage more discussion on this,
particularly on who plans to apply what part of this capability first
rather than what appears easier to do first. Indeed, since prototypes are a
necessary part of the standard development, I think getting volunteers to
apply these ideas may be the determining factor in the "subsetting"
definition and order.
Bill Wagner
-----Original Message-----
From: Harry Lewis [mailto:harryl@us.ibm.com]
Sent: Thursday, July 24, 2003 1:39 PM
To: Wagner,William
Cc: TAYLOR,BOB (HP-Vancouver,ex1); McDonald, Ira; wbmm@pwg.org
Subject: RE: WBMM> Queues
Ouch! disallow SETs?
I agree (propose) with the concept of subsetting. I am thinking more along
the lines of a "growth path"... where we start with Extranet as target and
possibly limit our scope to devices, then move to include Intranet and also
expand to services, then, finally include queues
But I think SET capability is needed, even at the lowest compliance level.
If not, how, for example, would a remote manager take a device off-line
should this be necessary... or post a message to the opPanel?
----------------------------------------------
Harry Lewis
Chairman - IEEE-ISTO Printer Working Group
http://www.pwg.org
IBM Printing Systems
http://www.ibm.com/printers
303-924-5337
----------------------------------------------
"Wagner,William" <WWagner@NetSilicon.com>
Sent by: owner-wbmm@pwg.org
07/24/2003 11:30 AM
To
"TAYLOR,BOB (HP-Vancouver,ex1)" <bobt@hp.com>, "McDonald, Ira"
<imcdonald@sharplabs.com>, Harry Lewis/Boulder/IBM@IBMUS, <wbmm@pwg.org>
cc
Subject
RE: WBMM> Queues
Harry had brought up the notion of different classes of compliance in his
last minutes. I think this is as it must go. For WBMM monitoring
applications, any set operation let alone queue management must be
disallowed. But that does not mean that we ought not identify and format set
operations.
Bill Wagner
-----Original Message-----
From: TAYLOR,BOB (HP-Vancouver,ex1) [mailto:bobt@hp.com]
Sent: Thursday, July 24, 2003 12:55 PM
To: 'McDonald, Ira'; 'Harry Lewis'; wbmm@pwg.org
Subject: RE: WBMM> Queues
I do think doing some sub-setting makes sense - in the case of queues, not
all devices/services managed by WBMM will have queues to manage.
Once we understand the potential subsets, we can talk about which ones need
to be in WBMM 1.0, and which can follow (or potentially be done in parallel.
bt
> -----Original Message-----
> From: McDonald, Ira [mailto:imcdonald@sharplabs.com]
> Sent: Thursday, July 24, 2003 9:44 AM
> To: 'Harry Lewis'; wbmm@pwg.org
> 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 - 15:51:42 EDT