attachment

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN"> <HTML><HEAD> <META HTTP-EQUIV="Content-Type" CONTENT="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1"> <TITLE>Message</TITLE> <META content="MSHTML 6.00.2722.900" name=GENERATOR></HEAD> <BODY> <DIV><SPAN class=016425619-24072003><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2>Bob,</FONT></SPAN></DIV> <DIV><SPAN class=016425619-24072003><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2></FONT></SPAN> </DIV> <DIV><SPAN class=016425619-24072003><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2>I agree. But the subject was defining some  set  of operations mandatory  for "compliance" with  the standard. The supposed intent would be that, if a entity is "standard compliant",  an interfacing entity can assume some minimum set of support. Although this  is a specious argument in fact (there are very many not-fully compliant implementations of virtually every  standard extant), it is a desirable goal. Because WBMM is being considered for several distinctly different types of application, there should  be  corresponding levels of compliance. It is  unclear if  providing a hard-coded 'not authorized' response  to  unsupported  operations would constitute  compliance.  Or indeed, if it does, whether  "compliance" is  a useful objective.</FONT></SPAN></DIV> <DIV><SPAN class=016425619-24072003><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2></FONT></SPAN> </DIV> <DIV><SPAN class=016425619-24072003><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2>Bill Wagner</FONT> </SPAN></DIV><SPAN class=016425619-24072003></SPAN><FONT face=Tahoma> <DIV><BR> </DIV> <DIV><FONT size=2><SPAN class=016425619-24072003> </SPAN>-----Original Message-----<BR><B>From:</B> TAYLOR,BOB (HP-Vancouver,ex1) [mailto:bobt@hp.com]<BR><B>Sent:</B> Thursday, July 24, 2003 3:49 PM<BR><B>To:</B> Wagner,William; Harry Lewis<BR><B>Cc:</B> McDonald, Ira; wbmm@pwg.org<BR><B>Subject:</B> RE: WBMM> Queues<BR><BR></DIV></FONT></FONT> <BLOCKQUOTE dir=ltr style="MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px"> <DIV><FONT face="Courier New" color=#0000ff size=2><SPAN class=244174119-24072003>I can certainly think of "remote" service cases where set and queue management would be appropriate.  IMHO, we should not fundamentally declare in the spec what can and cannot be done over a firewall or across a domain: this is exactly what our authentication scheme should do.  Many customers may not allow set or queue ma<SPAN class=016425619-24072003><FONT face=Arial> </FONT></SPAN>agement externally, but many will.</SPAN></FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT face="Courier New" color=#0000ff size=2><SPAN class=244174119-24072003></SPAN></FONT> </DIV> <DIV><FONT face="Courier New" color=#0000ff size=2><SPAN class=244174119-24072003>As for whether NetSilicon should implement set and/or queue management for proxy solutions, if they are "required" for whatever prile of WBMM you are supporting, you should implement them - but if you are sure that your customers will never allow you to expose them to an external client, you could make them stub implementations that always returned "not authorized".  This would allow you to deliver the solution your customers want without unnecessarily binding other WBMM use cases.</SPAN></FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT face="Courier New" color=#0000ff size=2><SPAN class=244174119-24072003></SPAN></FONT> </DIV> <DIV><FONT face="Courier New" color=#0000ff size=2><SPAN class=244174119-24072003>bt</SPAN></FONT></DIV> <BLOCKQUOTE dir=ltr style="PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #0000ff 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px"> <DIV></DIV> <DIV class=OutlookMessageHeader lang=en-us dir=ltr align=left><FONT face=Tahoma size=2>-----Original Message-----<BR><B>From:</B> Wagner,William [mailto:WWagner@NetSilicon.com] <BR><B>Sent:</B> Thursday, July 24, 2003 12:04 PM<BR><B>To:</B> Harry Lewis<BR><B>Cc:</B> TAYLOR,BOB (HP-Vancouver,ex1); McDonald, Ira; wbmm@pwg.org<BR><B>Subject:</B> RE: WBMM> Queues<BR><BR></FONT></DIV> <DIV><SPAN class=560524318-24072003><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2>Harry,</FONT></SPAN></DIV> <DIV><SPAN class=560524318-24072003><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2></FONT></SPAN> </DIV> <DIV><FONT face=Arial><FONT color=#0000ff><FONT size=2><SPAN class=560524318-24072003>One of the most immediate  applications of WBMM,  for which no standard  capability  now  exists, is in remote monitoring. In general, any set  operation (and many get operations)  must be disallowed for enterprise security and confidentiality purposes. If one is producing proxy devices  to support  such a capability  (as NetSilicon is), it would  be absurd to require  support of operations that could never be used.  </SPAN>N<SPAN class=560524318-24072003>ow, it is not clear  how important  full compliance  to a  PWG spec is, but  if  compliance requires  supporting a whole set of unusable operations, it will become meaningless.</SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT face=Arial><FONT color=#0000ff><FONT size=2><SPAN class=560524318-24072003></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT> </DIV> <DIV><FONT face=Arial><FONT color=#0000ff><FONT size=2><SPAN class=560524318-24072003>I also have  suggested  partitioning this  effort, although not  along the same lines. I think we should encourage more discussion on this, particularly  on  who plans to apply what  part of  this capability  first rather than what appears easier to do first. Indeed, since prototypes  are a necessary  part  of the  standard development, I think getting volunteers to apply these ideas may be the  determining factor  in the  "subsetting" definition and order.</SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT face=Arial><FONT color=#0000ff><FONT size=2><SPAN class=560524318-24072003></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT> </DIV> <DIV><FONT face=Arial><FONT color=#0000ff><FONT size=2><SPAN class=560524318-24072003></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT><FONT face=Arial><FONT color=#0000ff><FONT size=2><SPAN class=560524318-24072003></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT><FONT face=Arial><FONT color=#0000ff><FONT size=2><SPAN class=560524318-24072003></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT> </DIV> <DIV><FONT face=Arial><FONT color=#0000ff><FONT size=2><SPAN class=560524318-24072003>Bill Wagner</SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT face=Arial><FONT color=#0000ff><FONT size=2><SPAN class=560524318-24072003></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT> </DIV> <DIV><FONT face=Arial><FONT color=#0000ff><FONT size=2><SPAN class=560524318-24072003></SPAN><SPAN class=560524318-24072003> </SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT><FONT face=Tahoma size=2>-----Original Message-----<BR><B>From:</B> Harry Lewis [mailto:harryl@us.ibm.com]<BR><B>Sent:</B> Thursday, July 24, 2003 1:39 PM<BR><B>To:</B> Wagner,William<BR><B>Cc:</B> TAYLOR,BOB (HP-Vancouver,ex1); McDonald, Ira; wbmm@pwg.org<BR><B>Subject:</B> RE: WBMM> Queues<BR><BR></DIV></FONT> <BLOCKQUOTE><BR><FONT face=sans-serif size=2>Ouch! disallow SETs? </FONT><BR><BR><FONT face=sans-serif size=2>I agree (propose) with the concept of subsetting. I am thinking more along the lines of a "growth path"... where we start with Extranet as target and possibly limit our scope to devices, then move to include Intranet and also expand to services, then, finally include queues</FONT> <BR><BR><FONT face=sans-serif size=2>But I think SET capability is needed, even at the lowest compliance level. If not, how, for example, would a remote manager take a device off-line should this be necessary... or post a message to the opPanel?</FONT> <BR><FONT face=sans-serif size=2>---------------------------------------------- <BR>Harry Lewis <BR>Chairman - IEEE-ISTO Printer Working Group<BR>http://www.pwg.org<BR>IBM Printing Systems <BR>http://www.ibm.com/printers<BR>303-924-5337<BR>---------------------------------------------- </FONT><BR><BR><BR> <TABLE width="100%"> <TBODY> <TR vAlign=top> <TD width="40%"><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>07/24/2003 11:30 AM</FONT> </P> <TD width="59%"> <TABLE width="100%"> <TBODY> <TR> <TD> <DIV align=right><FONT face=sans-serif size=1>To</FONT></DIV> <TD vAlign=top><FONT face=sans-serif size=1>"TAYLOR,BOB (HP-Vancouver,ex1)" <bobt@hp.com>, "McDonald, Ira" <imcdonald@sharplabs.com>, Harry Lewis/Boulder/IBM@IBMUS, <wbmm@pwg.org></FONT> <TR> <TD> <DIV align=right><FONT face=sans-serif size=1>cc</FONT></DIV> <TD vAlign=top> <TR> <TD> <DIV align=right><FONT face=sans-serif size=1>Subject</FONT></DIV> <TD vAlign=top><FONT face=sans-serif size=1>RE: WBMM> Queues</FONT></TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE><BR> <TABLE> <TBODY> <TR vAlign=top> <TD> <TD></TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE><BR></TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE><BR><BR><BR><FONT size=2><TT>Harry had brought up  the notion of different classes of compliance in his last minutes. I think this  is as it must go. For WBMM monitoring applications, any  set  operation let alone queue management must be disallowed. But that does not mean that we ought not identify and format set operations.<BR><BR>Bill Wagner<BR><BR>-----Original Message-----<BR>From: TAYLOR,BOB (HP-Vancouver,ex1) [mailto:bobt@hp.com]<BR>Sent: Thursday, July 24, 2003 12:55 PM<BR>To: 'McDonald, Ira'; 'Harry Lewis'; wbmm@pwg.org<BR>Subject: RE: WBMM> Queues<BR><BR><BR>I do think doing some sub-setting makes sense - in the case of queues, not<BR>all devices/services managed by WBMM will have queues to manage.  <BR><BR>Once we understand the potential subsets, we can talk about which ones need<BR>to be in WBMM 1.0, and which can follow (or potentially be done in parallel.<BR><BR>bt<BR><BR>> -----Original Message-----<BR>> From: McDonald, Ira [mailto:imcdonald@sharplabs.com] <BR>> Sent: Thursday, July 24, 2003 9:44 AM<BR>> To: 'Harry Lewis'; wbmm@pwg.org<BR>> Subject: RE: WBMM> Queues<BR>> <BR>> <BR>> Hi Harry,<BR>> <BR>> Apparently we want to focus on WBMM device management first <BR>> (per most of our WBMM discussions).<BR>> <BR>> However, that doesn't do PSI any particular good, which still <BR>> would require the box labelled "and then a miracle happens" <BR>> to get a PSI Print Service (or Target Device) installed or <BR>> reconfigured after installation.<BR>> <BR>> Do we care that all PSI implementations will ship without <BR>> standards-based management for several more years?<BR>> <BR>> Cheers,<BR>> - Ira McDonald<BR>>   High North Inc<BR>> <BR>> <BR>> -----Original Message-----<BR>> From: Harry Lewis [mailto:harryl@us.ibm.com]<BR>> Sent: Wednesday, July 23, 2003 11:38 PM<BR>> To: wbmm@pwg.org<BR>> Subject: WBMM> Queues<BR>> <BR>> <BR>> <BR>> Sorry I missed the call. On the topic of queue management. <BR>> I've no objection to adding this but wonder if it might <BR>> warrant some subsetting of WBMM. Are you going to have to be <BR>> able to manage queues to be WBMM compliant? Don't we want to <BR>> focus on solving the device management problem first, and <BR>> then move on to queue management? <BR>> ---------------------------------------------- <BR>> Harry Lewis <BR>> Chairman - IEEE-ISTO Printer Working Group<BR>> http://www.pwg.org<BR>> IBM Printing Systems <BR>> http://www.ibm.com/printers<BR>> 303-924-5337<BR>> ---------------------------------------------- <BR>> <BR><BR></TT></FONT><BR></BLOCKQUOTE></BLOCKQUOTE></BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML>