attachment-0001
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">All,</font>
<br>
<br><tt><font size=2>On behalf of Peter Zehler, here is a reminder for
tomorrow's MFD teleconference with updated agenda.</font></tt>
<br>
<br><tt><font size=2>There will be an MFD conference call at 3:00 PM EST
(12:00 PM PST)<br>
Thursday November 18. Below is the proposed agenda (UPDATED TODAY)<br>
</font></tt>
<br>
<br><tt><font size=2>The meeting is held in accord with the PWG Intellectual
Property Policy.<br>
</font></tt>
<br>
<br><tt><font size=2>teleconference:<br>
</font></tt>
<br><tt><font size=2>Call-in toll-free number (US/Canada): 1-866-469-3239<br>
</font></tt>
<br><tt><font size=2>Call-in toll number (US/Canada): 1-650-429-3300<br>
</font></tt>
<br><tt><font size=2>Call-in toll number (US/Canada): 1-408-856-9570<br>
</font></tt>
<br><tt><font size=2>Attendee access code: (by request only, please contact
me if you do not<br>
have<br>
it)<br>
</font></tt>
<br>
<br><tt><font size=2>Live Meeting:<br>
</font></tt>
<br><tt><font size=2><https://www.livemeeting.com/cc/xerox/join?id=PWG-MFD&role=attend&pw=Let<br>
MeIn><br>
</font></tt>
<br>
<br><tt><font size=2>Agenda:<br>
</font></tt>
<br><tt><font size=2>1. Identify Minute Taker<br>
</font></tt>
<br><tt><font size=2>2. Approval of minutes from 10/4/10 meeting<br>
<ftp://ftp.pwg.org/pub/pwg/mfd/minutes/pwg-mfd-minutes-20101104.pdf><br>
</font></tt>
<br><tt><font size=2>3. Agenda bashing<br>
</font></tt>
<br><tt><font size=2>4. Discuss current issues with MFD model (See below)<br>
</font></tt>
<br><tt><font size=2>5. Discuss outstanding Overall Specification issues.</font></tt>
<br>
<br><tt><font size=2>6. Discuss the suggested Security Considerations by
Nancy</font></tt>
<br><tt><font size=2><ftp://ftp.pwg.org/pub/pwg/mfd/wd/Suggested-text-for-Security-Considerations-for-MFD-Model-and-Common-Semantics-20101117.pdf></font></tt>
<br>
<br><tt><font size=2>7. Next steps<br>
</font></tt>
<br>
<br><tt><font size=2>Current MFD Model issues:<br>
</font></tt>
<br><tt><font size=2>1. Scan Job Status, EmailOut Job
Status, FaxOut Job Status , have<br>
both ImagesCompleted and the full set of <Service>JobCounters which<br>
includes several Images counters. Print Job Status, Copy Job Status,<br>
FaxIn Job Status and EmailIn Job Status do not include an impressions<br>
completed, but do include the <Service>JobCounters<br>
</font></tt>
<br><tt><font size=2><PZ>PrintJobStatus does include ImpressionsCompleted.
Copy should as<br>
well. Email In and FaxIn may need ImagesCompleted since the processing<br>
of a job may not result in hard copy out. Those jobs always accept
some<br>
number of images.</PZ><br>
</font></tt>
<br><tt><font size=2>2. Are the Service Elements the same
counters as Job oriented<br>
counter values or are they separate? If they are separate, does<br>
persistence have any significance?<br>
</font></tt>
<br><tt><font size=2><PZ>Job counters have a scope of a single job.
Service counters have a<br>
scope of all the jobs processed by the service. At this time all<br>
service/job related counters share a common data type. The recent<br>
change to accommodate persistence had a side effect I missed. The<br>
resolution is either to redefine the job level counters or to mandate a<br>
lifetime value for the persistence. I prefer the former resolution.<br>
Another side effect is that Job counters have counts only applicable to<br>
a service (i.e., Availability, Monitoring). I believe the data types<br>
for the Job/Document counters needs to be corrected. It should be<br>
discussed next week at the MFD meeting.</PZ><br>
</font></tt>
<br><tt><font size=2>3. What is the difference between the
Images Completed count and<br>
the Work Images count?<br>
</font></tt>
<br><tt><font size=2><PZ>It is my opinion that ImagesCompleted and
ImpressionCompleted should<br>
map to the counters DataStream Images/Impressions count. My assumption<br>
is that the status level simple counter would be used by applications to<br>
show work progress. This should be discussed next week as well.</PZ><br>
</font></tt>
<br><tt><font size=2>4. Why is there a separate images
completed counter for some<br>
Services, but none (or no corresponding impressions counter) for others?<br>
</font></tt>
<br><tt><font size=2><PZ>Late night editing sessions...constant interruptions
to do my day<br>
job...service by service definition as opposed to an overall approach.<br>
Bottom line is that I think it needs to be fixed.</PZ><br>
</font></tt>
<br><tt><font size=2>5. Should JobAccountingSheets, JobErrorSheets,
JobSheetsCol be<br>
aligned with InsertSheet? (i.e. definition of media as a choice between<br>
MediaCol or a sequence of Media & MediaTypye)?<br>
</font></tt>
<br><tt><font size=2>Peter Zehler</font></tt>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<table width=100%>
<tr valign=top>
<td width=40%><font size=1 face="sans-serif"><b>"Zehler, Peter"
<Peter.Zehler@xerox.com></b> </font>
<p><font size=1 face="sans-serif">11/17/2010 08:05 AM</font>
<td width=59%>
<table width=100%>
<tr valign=top>
<td>
<div align=right><font size=1 face="sans-serif">To</font></div>
<td><font size=1 face="sans-serif"><Nancy.Chen@okidata.com></font>
<tr valign=top>
<td>
<div align=right><font size=1 face="sans-serif">cc</font></div>
<td><font size=1 face="sans-serif"><blueroofmusic@gmail.com>, <mfd@pwg.org>,
<wamwagner@comcast.net></font>
<tr valign=top>
<td>
<div align=right><font size=1 face="sans-serif">Subject</font></div>
<td><font size=1 face="sans-serif">RE: suggested text for Security Considerations
for MFD Model and Common Semantics</font></table>
<br>
<table>
<tr valign=top>
<td>
<td></table>
<br></table>
<br>
<br><tt><font size=2>Could someone post a pdf version and announce the
addition to the MFD<br>
agenda? (I am still rebuilding a system and have not yet regained
my<br>
ability to generate pdf.)<br>
</font></tt>
<br><tt><font size=2>Thanks,<br>
</font></tt>
<br><tt><font size=2>Pete<br>
</font></tt>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br><tt><font size=2>Peter Zehler<br>
</font></tt>
<br><tt><font size=2>Xerox Research Center Webster<br>
Email: Peter.Zehler@Xerox.com <mailto:Peter.Zehler@Xerox.com><br>
Voice: (585) 265-8755<br>
FAX: (585) 265-7441<br>
US Mail: Peter Zehler<br>
Xerox Corp.<br>
800 Phillips Rd.<br>
M/S 128-25E<br>
Webster NY, 14580-9701<br>
</font></tt>
<br>
<br>
<br><tt><font size=2>From: Nancy.Chen@okidata.com [mailto:Nancy.Chen@okidata.com]<br>
Sent: Wednesday, November 17, 2010 8:03 AM<br>
To: Zehler, Peter<br>
Cc: blueroofmusic@gmail.com; mfd@pwg.org; wamwagner@comcast.net<br>
Subject: RE: suggested text for Security Considerations for MFD Model<br>
and Common Semantics<br>
</font></tt>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br><tt><font size=2>Yes. Let's discuss this at tomorrow's teleconference.<br>
</font></tt>
<br><tt><font size=2>-Nancy<br>
</font></tt>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br><tt><font size=2>"Zehler, Peter" <Peter.Zehler@xerox.com><br>
</font></tt>
<br><tt><font size=2>11/17/2010 07:13 AM<br>
</font></tt>
<br><tt><font size=2>To<br>
</font></tt>
<br><tt><font size=2><Nancy.Chen@okidata.com>, <wamwagner@comcast.net>,<br>
<blueroofmusic@gmail.com><br>
</font></tt>
<br><tt><font size=2>cc<br>
</font></tt>
<br><tt><font size=2><mfd@pwg.org><br>
</font></tt>
<br><tt><font size=2>Subject<br>
</font></tt>
<br><tt><font size=2>RE: suggested text for Security Considerations for
MFD Model and Common<br>
Semantics<br>
</font></tt>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br><tt><font size=2>Should this be discussed at tomorrow's MFD teleconference?<br>
</font></tt>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br><tt><font size=2>Peter Zehler<br>
</font></tt>
<br><tt><font size=2>Xerox Research Center Webster<br>
Email: Peter.Zehler@Xerox.com <mailto:Peter.Zehler@Xerox.com><br>
Voice: (585) 265-8755<br>
FAX: (585) 265-7441<br>
US Mail: Peter Zehler<br>
Xerox Corp.<br>
800 Phillips Rd.<br>
M/S 128-25E<br>
Webster NY, 14580-9701<br>
</font></tt>
<br>
<br>
<br><tt><font size=2>From: Nancy.Chen@okidata.com [mailto:Nancy.Chen@okidata.com]<br>
Sent: Tuesday, November 16, 2010 6:16 PM<br>
To: wamwagner@comcast.net; Zehler, Peter; blueroofmusic@gmail.com<br>
Cc: mfd@pwg.org<br>
Subject: suggested text for Security Considerations for MFD Model and<br>
Common Semantics<br>
</font></tt>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br><tt><font size=2>Hi Bill, Pete, and Ira,<br>
</font></tt>
<br><tt><font size=2>The attached file is my suggested text for Security
Considerations that<br>
have incorporated the original sections you supplied.<br>
</font></tt>
<br>
<br><tt><font size=2>I have added everything important and made the section
more complete,<br>
mainly based on the requirements from IEEE 2600, with considerations of<br>
those developed in PWG IDS, and the support the MFD Model has for all<br>
Services.<br>
</font></tt>
<br><tt><font size=2>I have not included the considerations for Cloud Security.
But these are<br>
still under development in IDS. These still need to be added in the<br>
future. I will think about what can be added in general at this point.<br>
</font></tt>
<br><tt><font size=2>Any consideration need to be added from TCG?<br>
</font></tt>
<br><tt><font size=2>Please let me know what you think.<br>
</font></tt>
<br><tt><font size=2>Thanks,<br>
-Nancy<br>
------------------------------------------------------------------------<br>
--------------------------<br>
Nancy Chen, PWG Vice-Chair<br>
Principal Engineer<br>
Solutions and Technology<br>
Oki Data<br>
2000 Bishops Gate Blvd.<br>
Mt. Laurel, NJ 08054<br>
Phone: (856)222-7006<br>
Email: Nancy.Chen@okidata.com<br>
</font></tt>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br><br />--
<br />This message has been scanned for viruses and
<br />dangerous content by
<a href="http://www.mailscanner.info/"><b>MailScanner</b></a>, and is
<br />believed to be clean.