Web Based Monitoring and Management: WBMM> Re: Need quick de

WBMM> Re: Need quick decisions on schema changes

From: Harry Lewis (harryl@us.ibm.com)
Date: Wed Jun 02 2004 - 13:57:10 EDT

  • Next message: Zehler, Peter: "RE: WBMM> Re: Need quick decisions on schema changes"

    Inserted...
    ----------------------------------------------
    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>
    06/02/2004 11:47 AM

    To
    "'wbmm@pwg.org'" <wbmm@pwg.org>
    cc
    "'Wagner,William'" <WWagner@NetSilicon.com>, Harry Lewis/Boulder/IBM@IBMUS
    Subject
    Need quick decisions on schema changes

    Hi,
    PLEASE answer quickly with your opinions on edits below,
    so I can begin the edits needed in all of the WIMS schema
    after last week's PWG Vancouver meetings.

    Last week, we reduced the scope of the PWG Std Events spec
    and Events schema to Printer-only (Printer, Job, Document,
    and Subunit). Fine, but...

    (1) Alerts schema - Should I delete 'AlertResource'?
        - it depended on the now _deleted_ ResourceXxx events
          in the Events schema and Resource object in the
          (abandoned) Imaging System Model draft
    HL - Yes, for now... but we need to put these back in later
    (2) Alerts schema - Should I change 'NotifySourceState'
        to delete 'Testing' and 'Down' from 'hrDeviceStatus'
        in Host Resources MIB (RFC 2790)?
        - this change will make support of coherent Printer
          state harder to harmonize with HR MIB
        - I think that it's a bug that Printer state in IPP/1.1
          requires state reasons to report Down or Testing
    HL - No
    (3) Alerts schema - Should I rename 'NotifySourceState'
        to 'NotifyPrinterState' and 'NotifySourceURI' to
        'NotifyPrinterURI'?
        - doing so effectively closes the future possibility
          of multifunction alert support in WIMS
    HL - No!
    (4) Resource schema - Should we abandon this schema?
        - last week's meeting seemed against adding any
          new objects except in some future PWG MFP Model
        - abandoning Resources seems foolish to me
     HL - Seems foolish to me too. Don't like the word abandon. Prefer
    "staging"

    (5) Schedule schema - Should I reorganize it into
        the three Monitoring, Management, and Admin groups
        of Actions?
        - this seems worthwhile, as it describes WIMS levels
          better
    HL - Yes
    (6) Schedule schema - Should I delete Resource actions?
        - Does WIMS WG accept the need to model Resource?
    HL - No (Yes... but possibly at a later "stage")
    (7) Schedule schema - Should I import 'NotifyEvents' from
        the Events schema?
     
        - this looks better, but again loses Resources
    HL - Not sure... why does this loose Resources... because event schema
    requirments are being driven by PSI? Seems incorrect.
    (8) Schedule schema - Should I add the elements for
        Supported[Operations|Actions|Objects] here, so
        that RegisterForManagement operation works?
        - the WIMS operations won't appear in any generic
          PWG Semantic Model element in the forseeable future
    HL - why do you say the WIMS ops won't appear in SM? Do you mean just the
    admin related Ops?
    Cheers,
    - Ira
    Ira McDonald (Musician / Software Architect)
    Blue Roof Music / High North Inc
    PO Box 221 Grand Marais, MI 49839
    phone: +1-906-494-2434
    email: imcdonald@sharplabs.com



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Jun 02 2004 - 13:57:27 EDT