attachment-0001

Whether we define a "replacement for MIBs" as the result of "establishing a transport, protocol and format as part of the solution" ... or we do it because it is justifiable in itself... what's the difference? I wold argue it IS justifiable for reasons I cited in an earlier post.. not the least of which is resolving some of the force fitting we did with the MIB (ex. MIB-II, hrMIB)... (ex. "magic decode ring"). Also, there are multiple models today (CIM, SNMP, NPAP etc.) which it would be good to consolidate Also, this is an opportunity for the PWG to address MFP function which we've shied from for, probably, too long.   ---------------------------------------------- Harry Lewis IBM Printing Systems ---------------------------------------------- <table width=100%> <tr valign=top> <td> <td>"Wagner,William" <WWagner@NetSilicon.com> 02/07/2003 01:09 PM <td>                To:        Harry Lewis/Boulder/IBM@IBMUS, <wbmm@pwg.org>         cc:                 Subject:        RE: WBMM> Differences</table> Identifying and resolving differences, and coming to consensus is one of the main functions of a working group. So let see where the differences really lie.   I believe that scenarios add some specific to the general statements of scope. Harry has outlined one, or maybe two  here. I solicit from whomever has an opinion on this whatever other scenarios they would like addressed by this working group.    I certainly agree that "management across the firewall" is the basis for multiple scenarios. To  me, the basic problem to be solved.   But is " standard protocol and NEW data model"  to be taken as an objective in itself , or is it part of the solution to the first?   Certainly, establishing a transport, a protocol, a format  all need to be defined as part of the solution. If there is a difference between me and my fellow officers, it is that I do not agree that establishing a replacement for MIBs (as has been cited earlier) is justifiable as an objective in itself. Further, I am not convinced that it will be a necessary part of the solution.... it may be, but that needs to be demonstrated.   It may be that the "differences" are just a matter of semantics. I certainly do not suggest that ASN.1 be used to convey management data...but it isn't used now either. What is communicated over SNMP is the OID and the value.   So I suggest that we start talking examples and scenarios to better define the scope and objectives. Then we can sort through them and see how to proceed.   Unfortunately, we are now in the middle of a snow storm and I must fight my way home, so my contribution will have to wait a while. But please, take advantage of the New England weather and beat me to the punch!   Bill Wagner     -----Original Message----- From: Harry Lewis [mailto:harryl@us.ibm.com] Sent: Friday, February 07, 2003 2:41 PM To: wbmm@pwg.org Subject: WBMM> Differences I'd like to try and resolve some of the (unfortunate) differences we are having regarding Charter, Scope, Requirements. >From what I can decipher, there is a well established interest in solving the problem "I've been getting at my (device)  management data remotely, within my enterprise just fine... but, now, how can I access it across the firewall" (maybe to provide services to multiple enterprises etc.). Others also want to solve... "... and what is the standard protocol and data model that lends itself to the web services environment that may be employed by proxy servers and/or directly in the embedded device". Of course, we will have legacy SNMP devices to manage for quite some time but I don't think the current existence of SNMP is the answer to the 2nd question. ---------------------------------------------- Harry Lewis IBM Printing Systems ----------------------------------------------