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 6.00.2800.1276" name=GENERATOR></HEAD> <BODY> <DIV><SPAN class=988080614-05052004><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2>Hi,</FONT></SPAN></DIV> <DIV><SPAN class=988080614-05052004><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2></FONT></SPAN> </DIV> <DIV><SPAN class=988080614-05052004><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2>I agree again with all of Bill's points and reasoning.</FONT></SPAN></DIV> <DIV><SPAN class=988080614-05052004><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2></FONT></SPAN> </DIV> <DIV><SPAN class=988080614-05052004><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2>I am strongly opposed to introducing the concept of</FONT></SPAN></DIV> <DIV><SPAN class=988080614-05052004><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2>'negotiation' into Schedule transfers.  It doesn't exist</FONT></SPAN></DIV> <DIV><SPAN class=988080614-05052004><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2>in any other NMS architecture I've seen.  </FONT></SPAN></DIV> <DIV><SPAN class=988080614-05052004><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2></FONT></SPAN> </DIV> <DIV><SPAN class=988080614-05052004><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2>In WBMM/WIMS, the Manager </FONT></SPAN><SPAN class=988080614-05052004><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2>says "do this" (via an </FONT></SPAN></DIV> <DIV><SPAN class=988080614-05052004><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2>embedded Action in a Schedule).  And the </FONT></SPAN><SPAN class=988080614-05052004><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2>Agent either </FONT></SPAN></DIV> <DIV><SPAN class=988080614-05052004><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2>replies "fine by me" (with SendReport) </FONT></SPAN><SPAN class=988080614-05052004><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2>or "Manager not </FONT></SPAN></DIV> <DIV><SPAN class=988080614-05052004><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2>authorized" (with SendAlert).</FONT></SPAN></DIV> <DIV><SPAN class=988080614-05052004><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2></FONT></SPAN> </DIV> <DIV><SPAN class=988080614-05052004><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2>I think it's important that SendReport _never_ be used</FONT></SPAN></DIV> <DIV><SPAN class=988080614-05052004><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2>to report an Action failure.  Only use SendAlert.</FONT></SPAN></DIV> <DIV><SPAN class=988080614-05052004><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2></FONT></SPAN> </DIV> <DIV><SPAN class=988080614-05052004><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2>Cheers,</FONT></SPAN></DIV> <DIV><SPAN class=988080614-05052004><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2>- Ira</FONT></SPAN></DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <P><FONT size=2>Ira McDonald (Musician / Software Architect)<BR>Blue Roof Music / High North Inc<BR>PO Box 221  Grand Marais, MI  49839<BR>phone: +1-906-494-2434<BR>email: imcdonald@sharplabs.com</FONT> </P> <DIV class=OutlookMessageHeader 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> Tuesday, May 04, 2004 10:43 AM<BR><B>To:</B> Harry Lewis; wbmm@pwg.org<BR><B>Subject:</B> RE: WBMM> Couple Questions about Schedules<BR><BR></FONT></DIV> <DIV><SPAN class=074311414-04052004><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2>Harry,</FONT></SPAN></DIV> <DIV><SPAN class=074311414-04052004><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2></FONT></SPAN> </DIV> <DIV><SPAN class=074311414-04052004><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2>This brings up  the question of  addressing policy, one of the issues that remains outstanding  in the current  spec and one of  the aspects in the responses   to operations.  We have touched  on it in the emails.</FONT></SPAN></DIV> <DIV><SPAN class=074311414-04052004><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2></FONT></SPAN> </DIV> <DIV><SPAN class=074311414-04052004><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2>Certainly,  the  agent or the managed  entity operating though the agent  must  be able  to reject certain actions. (I had not  considered rejecting certain values, such as two frequent  or  too  large... I think that is a bit more complicated).  There  was  never any intent to negotiate  a schedule. I think  the last suggestion  from  Ira was  that, in the case  of an action that is prohibited  with respect   to a particular  managed  entity by site policy, the report dealing with that action  would   indicate that  the action was disallowed. That is, the  response to  the schedule does not  indicate  that an action is disallowed.  Rather, the report  on the action would indicated that is  is disallowed, just as it may indicate that the managed entity was down, or  was unable  to perform  the action   for  some  other reason..</FONT></SPAN></DIV> <DIV><SPAN class=074311414-04052004><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2></FONT></SPAN> </DIV> <DIV><SPAN class=074311414-04052004><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2> If  this  were a recurring action, the recurring  report  would  indicate it was  disallowed.   The management station,  operating through the manager could then modify the schedule,  but  it  does  not need to.   That is, there may be a  generic schedule rather than a custom  schedule  developed for  each   managed entity.</FONT></SPAN></DIV> <DIV><SPAN class=074311414-04052004><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2></FONT></SPAN> </DIV> <DIV><SPAN class=074311414-04052004><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2>We would need  to consider whether we need to address  agent  rather than   managed  entity policies. That  would address  operations rather than  actions. My  first reaction is that  this is not necessary since the Management Station  is a trusted and authenticated manager.  However,  it is something worth discussing.  The simple solution is  that the agent  sends reports  according to  it own  limiting policy if  the manager  demands  anything  exceeding that limit. What  would happen then is that the manger would report the agent  for  being  non-responsive,   and  it would need to be dealt with  outside  the protocol. With respect  to too many  elements, I think any  action must have a response. If the action is not performed, or  all  elements identified  in the action are not  acted on,  then this should   be in the report with a reason.</FONT></SPAN></DIV> <DIV><SPAN class=074311414-04052004><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2></FONT></SPAN> </DIV> <DIV><SPAN class=074311414-04052004><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2>Bill Wagner</FONT></SPAN></DIV> <DIV><SPAN class=074311414-04052004><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2></FONT></SPAN> </DIV> <DIV><SPAN class=074311414-04052004><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2></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, May 04, 2004 12:55 AM<BR><B>To:</B> wbmm@pwg.org<BR><B>Subject:</B> WBMM> Couple Questions about Schedules<BR><BR></FONT></DIV><BR><FONT face=sans-serif size=2>Couple questions / observations from internal review</FONT> <BR><BR><FONT face="Trebuchet MS" size=3>1.        Is there a way to negotiate a schedule? What if the agent thinks the schedule is too frequent or the list of elements too large? </FONT><BR><FONT face="Trebuchet MS" size=3>2.        Can the agent refuse a schedule or a specific action in a schedule (ex. PurgeJobs)? Is there a way to indicate this?</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></BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML>