Web-based Imaging Management Services: Re: WIMS> Reflections

Re: WIMS> Reflections on a (MIB) walk

From: Harry Lewis (harryl@us.ibm.com)
Date: Fri Sep 02 2005 - 00:22:47 EDT

  • Next message: McDonald, Ira: "WIMS> CIM - Posted CIM Delta XML schema (2 Sept 2005)"

    Bill, I think ALL standards participants can stand a regular healthy
    reminder about the 80/20 rule... how we should keep focused on
    standardizing well the 20% of objects, elements or attributes that will
    provide 80% of the key interoprable function. Your findings, although not
    specific, do act as such a reminder.

    I have been urging in past Plenary and Steering Committee meetings that
    one of the most beneficial services the PWG can provide is further Printer
    MIB interop testing. In the absence of a firm commitment to achieve this
    your recommendation to mandate (for WIMS) only essential elements that are
    known to be well supported is a good one.
    ----------------------------------------------
    Harry Lewis
    IBM STSM
    Chairman - IEEE-ISTO Printer Working Group
    http://www.pwg.org
    IBM Printing Systems
    http://www.ibm.com/printers
    303-924-5337
    ----------------------------------------------

    wamwagner@comcast.net
    Sent by: owner-wims@pwg.org
    09/01/2005 06:37 PM

    To
    "'wims@pwg.org'" <wims@pwg.org>
    cc

    Subject
    WIMS> Reflections on a (MIB) walk

    I just had occasion to MIB walk through a few implementations of a table
    or two in the printer MIB, in several standard products including some
    from the most predominant members of the industry. Remembering the
    discussion and consideration that went into the objects, it is an eye
    opener to see with what carelessness (or is it intentional sabotage) these
    things are implemented. Granted, looking at the spec after all this time,
    there are some ambiguities. But it often looks like someone just thru in
    arbitrary values for some objects. "Mandatory" means nothing. Since most
    management applications use private mibs, manufacturers appear not to put
    any effort into validating the general MIB.Or else the objects are of so
    little use that no one cares if the values are valid.
     
    Aside from being discouraging, I think there is a lesson here that we may
    apply to our on-going work. Keep things simple; don't expect that anyone
    cares if you label an element mandatory; if they have a use for it, it
    will be implemented. Let's not slavishly import things from the printer
    MIB or other sources, or even strive for completeness. The criteria for
    inclusion must be the clear need for the element as evidenced by existing
    use or indisputable future requirement.
     
    As for having a Printer MIB 2 cook-off (a non-proprietary bake-off),
    getting consistent implementations may be important to some people, but
    apparently not to manufacturers. I doubt anyone would come.
     
    Bill Wagner



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Sep 02 2005 - 00:22:09 EDT