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 6.00.2722.900" name=GENERATOR></HEAD> <BODY> <DIV>Bob,</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Your point is well taken. At this time, I doubt that there is a viable alternative to HTTP;  XML is sort of a natural;  and although I am not convinced that SOAP is necessary, I suspect that a very good argument can be made for it. </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>If alignment with the new round of IT & management technologies is being offered as a requirement, then we need to know more about the specifics of these technologies. Indeed, we need to expose and consider all of the assumed "requirements", since  what is an obvious requirement to me (e.g., ability to communicate information gained from any management model) may not be considered a requirement by others.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Bill Wagner</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <BLOCKQUOTE dir=ltr style="MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px"> <DIV class=OutlookMessageHeader dir=ltr align=left>-----Original Message----- From: TAYLOR,BOB (HP-Vancouver,ex1) [mailto:bobt@hp.com] Sent: Monday, February 10, 2003 2:19 PM To: Harry Lewis; Wagner,William Cc: wbmm@pwg.org Subject: RE: WBMM> Differences </DIV> <DIV>As for HTTP/XML/SOAP (& WSDL, XSD, etc.), I suspect there is some notion of a requirement there that we need to be more explicit about.  I think part of the justification for this effort (at least from HP) is alignment with the new round of IT & management technologies, for a variety of reasons - align management with other web services oriented work (e.g., PSI), better align with broader IT management technology directions, etc..  My point is that I don't think we're actually neutral on this.  We may want to consider other alternatives, but part of our requirements will likely include an explicit bias toward a set of technology "answers" that we need to align with.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>bt</DIV> <BLOCKQUOTE style="PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #0000ff 2px solid"> <DIV class=OutlookMessageHeader dir=ltr align=left>-----Original Message----- From: Harry Lewis [mailto:harryl@us.ibm.com] Sent: Saturday, February 08, 2003 9:38 PM To: Wagner,William Cc: wbmm@pwg.org Subject: RE: WBMM> Differences </DIV> Sounds to me like we are nearly in violent agreement. I thought it was you who coined the phrase "MIB replacement" in the thread.. so I was just trying to speak your language. I agree we should probably articulate the charter such that reasonable alternatives may be considered or discovered... but I think we should also acknowledge all 3 or 4 most vocal and interested parties (so far) seem to "anticipate" the application of HTTP and XML to get the job done. When we built the (very successful) Printer MIB standard... we did not embark in a vague or general direction... I feel being as specific as we can about our goal will help us achieve better results sooner.   ---------------------------------------------- Harry Lewis IBM Printing Systems ---------------------------------------------- <TABLE width="100%"> <TBODY> <TR vAlign=top> <TD> <TD>"Wagner,William" <WWagner@NetSilicon.com> Sent by: owner-wbmm@pwg.org 02/08/2003 06:49 PM <TD>                To:        Harry Lewis/Boulder/IBM@IBMUS         cc:        <wbmm@pwg.org>         Subject:        RE: WBMM> Differences</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE> <TT>Harry, At least  we both agree with Cathy. To answer your questions: a. Replacing MIBs as an object itself would inherently self justify the effort.  However, as a part of a solution, the need for such an effort must be justified. b. You can define a PWG activity which, for the various  reasons you have cited, determines that developing a replacement for MIBs is a justifiable object in  itself. Quite frankly, I am not sure that I even understand what you mean  by a replacement for MIBs, and I suggest that some examples may help.   Regardless, at this point, your own position is that we have not adequately scoped out the WBMM. Therefore, to preserve some order, I suggest that we should not be considering solutions to a problem we have not defined, but continue in an orderly way to scope out the objective. Indeed, even though I would agree that I see little alternative to  HTTP, probably XML, and quite possible SOAP as being components of the solution, I would not define these in the objectives or even the requirements. Nor would I refuse to entertain alternate ideas if reasonable ones were offered. Again, I think that short-circuits the development process. Bill Wagner                 -----Original Message-----                 From: Harry Lewis [mailto:harryl@us.ibm.com]                 Sent: Fri 2/7/2003 3:28 PM                 To: Wagner,William                 Cc: wbmm@pwg.org                 Subject: RE: WBMM> Differences                                                 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                 ----------------------------------------------                                                                 "Wagner,William" <WWagner@NetSilicon.com> 02/07/2003 01:09 PM                To:        Harry Lewis/Boulder/IBM@IBMUS, <wbmm@pwg.org>        cc:                Subject:        RE: WBMM> Differences                                 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                 ----------------------------------------------                 </TT> </BLOCKQUOTE></BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML>