attachment-0001
<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META HTTP-EQUIV="Content-Type" CONTENT="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1">
<META content="MSHTML 5.50.4922.900" name=GENERATOR></HEAD>
<BODY>
<DIV><SPAN class=906215316-29012003><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2>I
agree with what Harry is saying. I want to see us working on a replacement
for SNMP and the MIB which I definitely see as being inside the scope of the
charter. Doing this will give us a solution that works inside the firewall
as well as outside the firewall. </FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=906215316-29012003><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff
size=2></FONT></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=906215316-29012003><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2>Cathy
Markle</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE>
<DIV class=OutlookMessageHeader dir=ltr align=left><FONT face=Tahoma
size=2>-----Original Message-----<BR><B>From:</B> Harry Lewis
[mailto:harryl@us.ibm.com]<BR><B>Sent:</B> Tuesday, January 28, 2003 10:20
PM<BR><B>To:</B> Wagner,William<BR><B>Cc:</B> wbmm@pwg.org<BR><B>Subject:</B>
RE: WBMM> Management Commands<BR><BR></FONT></DIV><BR><FONT face=sans-serif
size=2>Nothing in the charter leads me to believe my perspective on remote
management to the same granularity as currently available via SNMP is excluded
or out of scope. I suggest we continue to strive for consensus and make
appropriate modifications or clarifications to the charter before sending out
for approval.</FONT> <BR><BR><FONT face=sans-serif size=2>I'd like to hear
from some others.</FONT> <BR><FONT face=sans-serif
size=2>---------------------------------------------- <BR>Harry Lewis <BR>IBM
Printing Systems <BR>----------------------------------------------
</FONT><BR><BR><BR>
<TABLE width="100%">
<TBODY>
<TR vAlign=top>
<TD>
<TD><FONT face=sans-serif size=1><B>"Wagner,William"
<WWagner@NetSilicon.com></B></FONT> <BR><FONT face=sans-serif
size=1>Sent by: owner-wbmm@pwg.org</FONT>
<P><FONT face=sans-serif size=1>01/28/2003 04:30 PM</FONT> </P>
<TD><FONT face=Arial size=1> </FONT><BR><FONT
face=sans-serif size=1> To:
Harry Lewis/Boulder/IBM@IBMUS, <wbmm@pwg.org></FONT>
<BR><FONT face=sans-serif size=1> cc:
</FONT> <BR><FONT face=sans-serif size=1>
Subject: RE: WBMM>
Management Commands</FONT></TR></TBODY></TABLE><BR><BR><BR><BR><FONT
size=2>Harry,</FONT> <BR><FONT size=3> </FONT> <BR><FONT size=2>Your
comments reflect a different perspective on the activity, or at least on
the priorities. It seems that you see the effort as a general
replacement for SNMP, perhaps defining some replacement to the
MIBs. What I see as the most pressing need is to provide for
remote access to existing data bases, be they MIBs or the data current
accessed by web pages, or some internal parameters. </FONT> <BR><FONT
size=3> </FONT> <BR><FONT size=2>I also do not see this in terms of
a management station canvassing to see what device supports what. In
general, I do not think that that sort of fishing would be allowed in
many enterprises. Rather, I see the device being registered
with the remote server to provide reposts according to some
pre-arraigned agreement on what parameters would be monitored. Indeed,
the idea was to define the transport and a general formal by which
elements could be queried or specified. Although items such as you
mention (size of media in trays) would not be excluded, it does not seem
the sort of thing that would be of interest to a remote server. I
will post the list of things brainstormed at the BOF.</FONT> <BR><FONT
size=3> </FONT> <BR><FONT size=3>I intended the proposed Charter to
be clear that this activity was to use the path intended for web
browsing to allow authorized but non-enterprise agencies to monitor
(for usage information, for example) and perhaps do specific maintenance
(for updates or upgrades, for example) to on-enterprise site equipment.
it was not the intent that this be a general SNMP
replacement. Perhaps you may want to look at the charter again
before we send it out for final approval. ( I have attached the draft as
modified at Maui). By the way, the title is </FONT><FONT size=2>Charter
Proposal for PWG WEB-Based Monitoring and Management, hence
WBMM.</FONT> <BR><FONT size=3> </FONT> <BR><FONT size=2>Bill
Wagner</FONT> <BR><FONT size=3> </FONT> <BR><FONT
size=3> </FONT> <BR><FONT size=2>-----Original Message-----</FONT>
<BR><FONT size=2><B>From:</B> Harry Lewis
[mailto:harryl@us.ibm.com]</FONT> <BR><FONT size=2><B>Sent:</B> Monday,
January 27, 2003 2:46 PM</FONT> <BR><FONT size=2><B>To:</B>
wbmm@pwg.org</FONT> <BR><FONT size=2><B>Subject:</B> WBMM> Management
Commands</FONT> <BR><BR><BR><BR><FONT size=2>SNMP has GET, SET,
GETBULK etc. What types of commands would we like to see in WBMM (what
does WBMM stand for, anyway!?... perhaps separate discussion... aren't
we forgetting the U word... "Universal Deice and Services
Management")</FONT><FONT size=3> </FONT> <BR><BR><FONT size=2>Back to
the topic...</FONT><FONT size=3> </FONT><BR><BR><FONT size=2>I'm thinking we
will want to improve on the interfaces and commands based on what we
have learned over the years implementing the Printer MIB. Please share
your thoughts. Here are some of mine. We need...</FONT><FONT size=3>
</FONT><BR><BR><FONT size=2>1. A way to query what attributes are
settable and which are not (we learned, with SNMP, that "MaxAccess"
isn't always that helpful).</FONT><FONT size=3> </FONT><BR><FONT size=2>2. A
way to query attribute (elements?) either singularly (tell me size of
media in "main" tray), in bulk (give me the "input group"), or filtered
(tell me the name of each tray; tell me all trays which are loaded with
transparency). </FONT><BR><FONT size=2>3. If we end up with
mandatory and optional commands or interfaces, a way to query which are
supported in a particular implementation (describe via
WSIL/WSDL?).</FONT><FONT size=3> </FONT> <BR><BR><FONT
size=2> ---------------------------------------------- </FONT><BR><FONT
size=2>Harry Lewis </FONT> <BR><FONT size=2>IBM Printing Systems
</FONT><BR><FONT size=2>----------------------------------------------
</FONT> <BR><BR><BR><FONT face=sans-serif size=2>#### Charter Proposal
2.doc has been removed from this note on January 28, 2003 by Harry
Lewis</FONT> <BR></BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML>