Harry,
I think the idea was that the primary operations are those that I identified. The list below (subject to consideration) would be contained within the response to GetSchedule. It is not clear to me if we can describe them all at the same level. But the fact is that the management server can not directly initiate any operation through the management agent. it can only respond to a management agent query for instructions, that is GetSchedule.
Bill Wagner
-----Original Message-----
From: Harry Lewis [mailto:harryl@us.ibm.com]
Sent: Friday, September 05, 2003 1:12 PM
To: McDonald, Ira
Cc: wbmm@pwg.org; Wagner,William
Subject: RE: WBMM> Operations
So the list of operations I currently have is
Disable
Enable
Pause
Resume
Activate
Purge
Reset
PowerOff
GetAttributes
SetAttributes
GetResource
SetResource
Register
Unregister
We are still toying with the concept of an "Execute" for extensibility if nothing else (right?)
And this current thread is about adding GetSchedule, SendReport, and SendNotification (or SendAlert)
Right?
Should we be considering Schedule as a Resource (GetResource vs Get Schedule)? Is a report really GetAttributes?
----------------------------------------------
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
09/05/2003 10:12 AM
To
"'Wagner,William'" <WWagner@NetSilicon.com>, "McDonald, Ira" <imcdonald@sharplabs.com>, wbmm@pwg.org
cc
Subject
RE: WBMM> Operations
Hi Bill,
IPP "SendNotification" is used for Printer alerts (not just
Job notifications). If we keep both, then the PWG Semantic
Model has to model them both and clarify when to use one
or the other.
And if a "routine" notification is sent to a WBMM Manager,
then it's not properly an alert (an exception notification),
right?
Cheers,
- Ira
-----Original Message-----
From: Wagner,William [mailto:WWagner@NetSilicon.com]
Sent: Friday, September 05, 2003 10:19 AM
To: McDonald, Ira; wbmm@pwg.org
Subject: RE: WBMM> Operations
Ira,
I toyed with both "accept' and "Send". I guess I left it thinking of
these as commands, with the result indicated. I have no problem with
the "SendReport". approach and agree that it is better.
I still think that the WBMM "SendAlert" is, at most, a special case of the
more general "SendNotification" both in content and use (I could not see a
WBMM Managment Application
being notified when a job was done, let alone when each page drops).
Although there may be some similarity, I think it better to preserve a name
distinction.
Bill Wagner
-----Original Message-----
From: McDonald, Ira [mailto:imcdonald@sharplabs.com]
Sent: Thursday, September 04, 2003 1:36 PM
To: Wagner,William; wbmm@pwg.org
Subject: RE: WBMM> Operations
Hi Bill,
Comments about your operation names:
(1) 'GetSchedule' is fine.
(2) 'AcceptReport' I don't like - the verb should describe the action
of the Sender - I suggest (following IPP Notifications) we use
'SendReport'.
(3) 'AcceptAlert' - same comment - I suggest 'SendAlert' or (closer
to IPP Notifications) 'SendNotification'.
Cheers,
- Ira McDonald
High North Inc
PS - I actually _am_ working on XML schema for a Schedule object and
an Action object (row in a schedule). I'm looking at the very mature
IETF Schedule MIB (RFC 3231, October 2002, which obsoletes RFC 2591):
"Abstract
This memo defines a portion of the Management Information Base (MIB)
for use with network management protocols in the Internet community.
In particular, it describes a set of managed objects that are used to
schedule management operations periodically or at specified dates and
times."
-----Original Message-----
From: Wagner,William [mailto:WWagner@NetSilicon.com]
Sent: Wednesday, August 27, 2003 1:37 PM
To: wbmm@pwg.org
Subject: WBMM> Operations
Ira,
Considering what I was calling the "connections" as the initial
operations requested in the Post by the managed object, these
operations would be called;
Get Schedule (arguments include ID of device or proxy [which
represents a group of devices])
(Accept) Periodic report
(Accept) Alert Report (notification)
The schedule would consist of one or more of what we have been
previously calling operation requests (e.g., get element), qualified
by time, condition and (to accommodate proxies) actual managed object
ID. The time could be immediate, in which case you would have the
exchange:
Managed Object
Manager
Open connection or send initial mail message
----------------------Get
Schedule------------------------------>
<----Schedule (get-element X, device y,
immediate)---
-----Accept Report (element X value, device
y)--------->
<---------------------------Report
Accepted------------------------
----------------------Get
Schedule------------------------------>
<-------Schedule (send next Get Schedule
[time], end)-----
close connection or cease POP polling
Perhaps we could also allow that a Schedule can be the response to an
Accept Report. That would simplify an exchange to:
Managed Object
Manager
----------------------Get
Schedule------------------------------>
<----Schedule (get-element X, device y,
immediate)---
-----Accept Report (element X value, device
y)--------->
<----Schedule (get-element Z, device y,
immediate)---
-----Accept Report (element X value, device
y)--------->
<-------Schedule (send next Get Schedule
[time], end)-----
I am uncertain if we can represent the operation commands contained
within the Get Schedule operation response in the same was as the Get
Schedule, Accept Report and Accept Alert operations.
Bill Wagner
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Sep 05 2003 - 13:56:45 EDT