Larry,
I was presenting an argument, not necessarily specifying a solution. I would
like to have your thinking on why these actors/actions are needed in the
model. And I still have the question on whether conditional accesses
(service functions accessible depending on time, quantity etc) can
reasonably be fully handled by the cloud environment outside for the PWG
model. Perhaps user authorization not only limits client access to
appropriate Cloud Print Servers, but allows access with some conditional
restriction code that is enforced in the client (or in the Cloud Print
Server?)
I agree that we want the print model to phase well into the general model,
but I also would like to understand in what way these actions would apply
more to a scan service (or any other imaging service) than to a print
service. With respect to administrative/device controls, I think device
controls (that is, changing end device configuration) are completely out of
scope (unless we want to define a model for Cloud based management of a
imaging device.) What constitute Administrative controls is squishy, but I
think we need to decide whether administering any of the model components,
or providing administrative data from any of the components, is reasonably
an objective of the printing, scanning, etc model. Again, I pose this as a
question, not a conclusion.
Thoughts from the list please!
Thanks,
Bill W.
From: larryupthegrove [mailto:larryupthegrove at comcast.net]
Sent: Thursday, February 07, 2013 11:53 AM
To: 'William A Wagner'; cloud at pwg.org
Subject: RE: [Cloud] new actors summary
Bill,
I appreciate your comments. I am trying to think longer term, to include
scan operations and administrative/device controls.
My concerns about not identifying these tasks and/or owners deals with the
acceptance of this standard in the marketplace. In the legacy network
environments, imaging tasks are mostly controlled by the operating system
vendor and the printer manufacturer. The OS vendor may publish a
compatibility document, indicating approval.
I am ok with adding these type requirements back into the functional
requirements, and adding the exclusions into the design requirements. I
think the sale of these cloud imaging solutions may not be enhanced by the
fact that only a part of solution is covered by the standards.
Larry
From: William A Wagner [mailto:wamwagner at comcast.net]
Sent: Wednesday, February 06, 2013 3:32 PM
To: 'larryupthegrove'; cloud at pwg.org
Subject: RE: [Cloud] new actors summary
Many thanks for these suggestions and the discussion. I think, considering
Glen's argument, that it might be better to start with considering what
actors are responsible for these actions rather than defining new actors.
For example:
User access to device and features: Joe suggests that we have already
considered this as out of scope for the print model, with questions of user
identification and authorization implemented by other aspects of the Cloud
Environment. Presumably, by the PWG Cloud Imaging model, the client
connection with the Cloud Service establishes what Cloud Print Servers the
user can access, and what end services he can use. Therefore, although it
may be any one of several actors that is responsible for defining access
rights, none of the components of the PWG Model should be defined as
responsible for enforcing them; rather it becomes part of the Cloud
Environment requirements (functional requirements) and must be clearly
stated in those requirements. If this is agreed to, the question to be
considered here is conditional access rights.access limited to certain
functions, quantities, or times.
I would say that authorization or selection of:
cloud services or connections
Administrator access to device, logs, and other user controls
Accounting functions
Are probably appropriate actions for the administrator of the Print
Manager.or maybe someone else. But I don't think that these are part of the
Cloud Printing model. These too are part of the environment and should be
included in Functional requirements but I don't think that we need to define
the actor.
For the Cloud Service administrator, again I suggest that these
configuration operation are all out of scope for the model, although they
should be identified in the Function requirements section. And as such, it
is not necessary to identify a Cloud Service Administrator actor .
Having indicated that I do not think that these actors need be identified, I
would ask Larry if he added them since he needed them for the sequence
diagrams or other parts of section 4.
Thanks,
Bill W.
From: cloud-bounces at pwg.org [mailto:cloud-bounces at pwg.org] On Behalf Of
larryupthegrove
Sent: Wednesday, February 06, 2013 12:46 PM
To: cloud at pwg.org
Subject: [Cloud] new actors summary
ftp://ftp.pwg.org/pub/pwg/cloud/white/New Actors.pdf
ftp://ftp.pwg.org/pub/pwg/cloud/white/New Actors.docx
New Actors
Device Owner - the person(s) or entity responsible for the authorization or
selection of:
1. Any cloud services or connections (apply to IPP)
2. User access to device and features
3. Administrator access to device, logs, and other user controls
4. Accounting functions
Cloud Service Administrator - on behalf of the Device Owner, performs
operations to:
1. Configures device access controls for use by Cloud Service -
should be with
2. Configures device for Cloud Print Service access
3. Can start, stop , or modify all queues at the cloud service
4. Can retrieve any logs from the cloud service
5. Accounting configurations
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by <http://www.mailscanner.info/> MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.pwg.org/pipermail/cloud/attachments/20130207/36e5974d/attachment-0002.html>