There are also some models of print, scan, copy, fax, and document
storage/retrieval functions in the P2600-series protection profile drafts.
Look at P2600.1 for the most complete examples. These models are very high
level, simplified abstractions, but I think it would be beneficial to all
if the PWG MFD model and the P2600 models were consistent in approach and
nomenclature.
Where they are inconsistent, particularly in nomenclature, there is a
sliver of time available to recommend corrections to the P2600 draft
standard (sponsor ballot closes on Thursday midnight EST!). If you're not
on the sponsor ballot committee, find someone who is and ask them to
submit a comment. If you don't know anyone on the committee, you can send
your comments to me and I'll consider them.
The P2600-series protection profiles have not yet gone to sponsor ballot,
so there is more time to make changes for consistency between PWG MFD and
P2600 PPs. However, it will be difficult to make a change to the PPs if
such a change is inconsistent with the P2600 main standard.
All of the various P2600 drafts are (for now) available here:
http://grouper.ieee.org/groups/2600/techdocs.html
Regards,
--
Brian Smithson
Project Manager, Security Research
PMP, SSCP, CISSP, CISA, ISO 27000 PA
Advanced Imaging and Network Technologies
Ricoh Americas Corporation
(408)346-4435
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-mfd at pwg.org [mailto:owner-mfd at pwg.org] On Behalf
> Of Petrie, Glen
> Sent: Monday, December 17, 2007 3:04 PM
> To: mfd at pwg.org> Subject: RE: MFD> Dec 11 PWG MFD face-to-face meeting minutes
> available
>> In the P2600 main document there is a very high level generic
> architecture
> of a Hardcopy Device which help to provide a common base for
> discussion.
> Although I am not proposing that we specifically use the P2600 generic
> architecture; would it be helpful to the PWG members and the
> those who will
> use the specifications to create the generic MFD
> architecture, labeling and
> general nomenclature to be used of all related
> specifications. As Bill
> points out the terms depend upon our perspective and, thus, can vary.
>>> glen
>> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: owner-mfd at pwg.org [mailto:owner-mfd at pwg.org] On
> Behalf Of William A
> > Wagner
> > Sent: Monday, December 17, 2007 2:41 PM
> > To: mfd at pwg.org; nchen at okidata.com> > Subject: RE: MFD> Dec 11 PWG MFD face-to-face meeting
> minutes available
> >
> > Some thoughts.
> >
> > I agree with Pete's distinction between configuration and settings.
> > Although
> > I have heard "configuration" used to identify a set of
> settings, using
> > "settings" to identify a physical configuration seems quite
> inappropriate.
> >
> > Coming from a hardware background, I regard "component" at
> a much lower
> > level than "subunit", although technically the word is
> correct at any
> > level... that is, anything may be considered a component of
> something.
> > "Subunit" retains a physical connotation while component
> can apply to
> > anything. Although it might be a bit muddy as to what a
> unit is, in this
> > context a unit would tend to refer to a physical entity performing a
> > primary
> > function. A sub-unit would be one step down. So the term
> would imply some
> > physical component performing a relatively high level
> function. Component
> > would have no physical or functional connotation; it is
> just, in some way,
> > a
> > part of something.
> >
> > Clear physical terms are often use for "logical" entities,
> so things get
> > pretty foggy. Although the terms must be defined in the
> document, it would
> > better to follow general usage in of the intended audience.
> So I guess
> > that
> > is the answer and the question.
> >
> > Bill Wagner
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: owner-mfd at pwg.org [mailto:owner-mfd at pwg.org] On Behalf Of
> > david at lexmark.com> > Sent: Monday, December 17, 2007 12:38 PM
> > To: Ira McDonald
> > Cc: Ira McDonald; mfd at pwg.org; nchen at okidata.com; owner-mfd at pwg.org;
> > Zehler,
> > Peter
> > Subject: Re: MFD> Dec 11 PWG MFD face-to-face meeting
> minutes available
> >
> > I, too, hate our use of the term "subunit" and support the change to
> > "components."
> >
> > I also strongly agree with Pete that I don't want the
> proposed change.
> >
> > Components are constituent elements. Configuration is the relative
> > disposition or arrangement of elements. Therefore, the
> Configuration is
> > made up of Components.
> >
> > Capabilities depend on the available Components, or the
> Configuration.
> > Settings is a collection of Capabilities and their current
> state. (We'll
> > ignore Heisenberg's uncertainty principle)
> >
> > dhw
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > "Ira McDonald"
> > <blueroofmusic at gm> > ail.com>
> To
> > Sent by: "Zehler, Peter"
> > owner-mfd at pwg.org> <Peter.Zehler at xerox.com>, "Ira
> > McDonald"
> <blueroofmusic at gmail.com>
> >
> cc
> > 12/17/2007 11:42 nchen at okidata.com,
>mfd at pwg.org> > AM
> Subject
> > Re: MFD> Dec 11 PWG MFD
> > face-to-face meeting minutes
> > available
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Hi Pete,
> >
> > I see you what you mean, but...
> >
> > Be aware that DMTF CIM Core WG hates our term "subunits"
> and has made
> > us completely replace it with their term "components".
> >
> > "Configuration is" just too inherently ambiguous. "Xxx" is just as
> > meaningful,
> > if the intent is to imply components.
> >
> > Cheers,
> > - Ira
> >
> > On Dec 17, 2007 6:38 AM, Zehler, Peter
> <Peter.Zehler at xerox.com> wrote:
> > > Ira,
> > >
> > > I do not want to see that change. When I talk to our
> driver people
> > > "settings" is more closely aligned with the default ticket and
> > > capabilities. Settings can be changed by an
> administrator or End User
> > > (often remotely). A configuration can not be as easily
> changed and
> > > involves the addition or removal of hardware. There are
> other mappings
> > > (see
> > > <http://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-us/library/aa507422.aspx>)
> that are very
> > > closely aligned with the PWG Semantic model. Their
> Defaults & Allowed
> > > Values map to Settings. Their Configuration maps to
> Subunits (i.e.
> > > Configuration).
> > >
> > > In the PWG Semantic Model the configuration element is
> the installed
> > > hardware for the system or the effective hardware
> configuration for the
> > > service (i.e. the service specific view for the subunits used).
> > >
> > > Pete
> > >
> > > Peter Zehler
> > > XEROX
> > > Xerox Research Center Webster
> > > Email: Peter.Zehler at Xerox.com> > > Voice: (585) 265-8755
> > > FAX: (585) 265-7441
> > > US Mail: Peter Zehler
> > > Xerox Corp.
> > > 800 Phillips Rd.
> > > M/S 128-25E
> > > Webster NY, 14580-9701
> > >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: owner-mfd at pwg.org [mailto:owner-mfd at pwg.org] On
> Behalf Of Ira
> > > McDonald
> > > Sent: Saturday, December 15, 2007 1:40 PM
> > > To: nchen at okidata.com; Ira McDonald
> > > Cc: mfd at pwg.org> > > Subject: Re: MFD> Dec 11 PWG MFD face-to-face meeting
> minutes available
> > >
> > >
> > > Hi Nancy,
> > >
> > > Thanks for these excellent and detailed minutes.
> > >
> > > A comment on element group naming. What Pete (and
> minutes) referred
> > > to as a new group parallel to Capabilities and DefaultJobTicket is
> > > always
> > > called Settings throughout the classes in the CIM model.
> > >
> > > We will have to add a PrintServiceSettings and
> PrintServiceCapabilities
> > > classes in our 2008 WIMS-CIM modelling work.
> > >
> > > I suggest changing Configuration to Settings.
> > >
> > > Cheers,
> > > - Ira
> > >
> > >
> > > On Dec 15, 2007 2:54 AM, <nchen at okidata.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Dear All,
> > > >
> > > > The meeting minutes is now available as:
> > > >
> > > >
>ftp://ftp.pwg.org/pub/pwg/mfd/minutes/PWG_MFD_minutes_20071211.pdf> > > > and
> > > >
>ftp://ftp.pwg.org/pub/pwg/mfd/minutes/PWG_MFD_minutes_20071211.doc> > > >
> > > > Thanks very much for your participations. We had very
> fun, witty, and
> > > > fruitful discussions in the meeting.
> > > >
> > > > -Nancy
> > > >
> > >
> --------------------------------------------------------------
> ----------
> > > -----------------------
> > > > Nancy Chen
> > > > Solutions and Technology
> > > > Oki Data
> > > > 2000 Bishops Gate Blvd.
> > > > Mt. Laurel, NJ 08054
> > > > Phone: (856) 222-7006 (desk)
> > > > (856) 222-5148 (lab)
> > > > Email: nchen at okidata.com> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > Ira McDonald (Musician / Software Architect)
> > > Chair - Linux Foundation Open Printing WG
> > > Blue Roof Music / High North Inc
> > > PO Box 221 Grand Marais, MI 49839
> > > work: +1-906-494-2434
> > > home: +1-906-494-2697
> > > email: blueroofmusic at gmail.com> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Ira McDonald (Musician / Software Architect)
> > Chair - Linux Foundation Open Printing WG
> > Blue Roof Music / High North Inc
> > PO Box 221 Grand Marais, MI 49839
> > work: +1-906-494-2434
> > home: +1-906-494-2697
> > email: blueroofmusic at gmail.com>>