Hi Ira,
I agree with your conclusions.
Thanks,
-Nancy
Ira McDonald <blueroofmusic at gmail.com>
09/15/2011 12:19 PM
To
Nancy.Chen at okidata.com, Ira McDonald <blueroofmusic at gmail.com>
cc
"Zehler, Peter" <Peter.Zehler at xerox.com>, mfd at pwg.org
Subject
Re: [MFD] RE: Missing semantic text for elements specific to System Object
in System Control Service spec
Hi Pete and Nancy,
Given that we keep AvailableResources as a top System element,
I suggest the following conclusions:
(1) A ResourceService MAY be started using SystemControlService
(or via factory installed configuration)
- but a System NEED NOT support ResourceService
(2) At most ONE ResourceService may started on a given System
- that is, no partitioning of Resource types is allowed across
different running instances of ResourceService
- this preserves the administrator's tight control of installed
resources, especially firmware
(3) The installation of temporary Resources (e.g., Job-scope scripts)
by End Users is OPTIONAL and MUST require strong access
control if supported
- otherwise it's not feasible to verify a Trusted System MFD
WDYT?
Cheers,
- Ira
Ira McDonald (Musician / Software Architect)
Chair - Linux Foundation Open Printing WG
Co-Chair - IEEE-ISTO PWG IPP WG
Chair - TCG Embedded Systems Hardcopy SWG
IETF Designated Expert - IPP & Printer MIB
Blue Roof Music/High North Inc
http://sites.google.com/site/blueroofmusichttp://sites.google.com/site/highnorthinc
mailto:blueroofmusic at gmail.com
Christmas through April:
579 Park Place Saline, MI 48176
734-944-0094
May to Christmas:
PO Box 221 Grand Marais, MI 49839
906-494-2434
On Thu, Sep 15, 2011 at 11:18 AM, <Nancy.Chen at okidata.com> wrote:
>> Hi Pete,
>> I'd like to keep AvailableResources. It's important to keep an
inventory
> of installed system resources and all information about them so that
they
> can be easily tracked for product installation as well as
updated/upgraded
> later.
>> Thanks,
> -Nancy
>>>> *Ira McDonald <blueroofmusic at gmail.com>*
>> 09/14/2011 02:06 PM
> To
> "Zehler, Peter" <Peter.Zehler at xerox.com>, Ira McDonald <
>blueroofmusic at gmail.com>
> cc
>Nancy.Chen at okidata.com, mfd at pwg.org> Subject
> Re: [MFD] RE: Missing semantic text for elements specific to System
Object
> in System Control Service spec
>>>> Hi Pete,
>> I would prefer to keep the top-level AvailableResources element.
>> Otherwise, an MFD can only implement Resources if it publishes a
> Resource service. And the System Control Service can't modify
> metadata (such as expiration dates) on Resources or query them.
>> That means no CIM or other translation of PWG SM can expose
> the Resource instances.
>> Cheers,
> - Ira
>> Ira McDonald (Musician / Software Architect)
> Chair - Linux Foundation Open Printing WG
> Co-Chair - IEEE-ISTO PWG IPP WG
> Chair - TCG Embedded Systems Hardcopy SWG
> IETF Designated Expert - IPP & Printer MIB
> Blue Roof Music/High North Inc
>http://sites.google.com/site/blueroofmusic>http://sites.google.com/site/highnorthinc> mailto:blueroofmusic at gmail.com> Christmas through April:
> 579 Park Place Saline, MI 48176
> 734-944-0094
> May to Christmas:
> PO Box 221 Grand Marais, MI 49839
> 906-494-2434
>>>> On Tue, Sep 13, 2011 at 8:28 AM, Zehler, Peter <Peter.Zehler at xerox.com> >wrote:
>> > Nancy,****
> >
> > Responses are inline below.****
> >
> > Pete****
> >
> > ** **
> >
> > ** **
> >
> > Peter Zehler
> >
> > 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 ****
> >
> > ** **
> >
> > *From:* Nancy.Chen at okidata.com [mailto:Nancy.Chen at okidata.com]
> > *Sent:* Tuesday, September 06, 2011 12:40 PM
> > *To:* Zehler, Peter
> > *Cc:* mfd at pwg.org> > *Subject:* Missing semantic text for elements specific to System
Object
> in
> > System Control Service spec****
> >
> > ** **
> >
> >
> > Hi Pete,
> >
> > In the System Control Service spec, the following elements are
specific
> to
> > the System Object, hence are not defined in MFD Model spec. Would you
> > please add their semantic text ?
> >
> > in Section 6.2, the text for the following elements are missing in
> > SystemDescription: ****
> >
> >
> > AvailableResources
> > <PZ>Removed from model. It was added for the stalled
> >
>ftp://ftp.pwg.org/pub/pwg/ipp/new_RES/draft-ietf-ipp-get-resource-00.pdfspecification
> </PZ>
>> > ****
> >
> > DevicesSupported ****
> >
> > <PZ>Removed due to no clean mapping to PWG5104.2 and lack of PSI
support
> or
> > PSI implementations.</PZ>
> > ServicesSupported ****
> >
> > <PZ>Added</PZ>****
> >
> >
> >
> > in Section 6.3, the text for the following elements are missing in
> > SystemStatus:
> >
> > ConfiguredServices
> >
> > <PZ>Added</PZ>
> > SystemConfigChangeNumber
> > <PZ>Added</PZ>
> > SystemHealth
> > <PZ>Removed until PWG Hardcopy Device Health Assessment Attributes
> > completes Formal Vote</PZ>
> > SystemTotals ****
> >
> > <PZ>Added</PZ>****
> >
> >
> >
> > Some of them are already defined in another PWG standard spec, but
since
> > there is no reference in MFD Model spec, I think it's a good idea to
add
> > them here.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > -Nancy
> >
> >
>--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > Nancy Chen, PWG Vice-Chair
> > Principal Engineer
> > Solutions and Technology
> > Oki Data
> > 2000 Bishops Gate Blvd.
> > Mt. Laurel, NJ 08054
> > Phone: (856)222-7006****
> >
> > ** **
> >
> > --
> > This message has been scanned for viruses and
> > dangerous content by *MailScanner* <http://www.mailscanner.info/>, and
> is
>> > believed to be clean.
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > mfd mailing list
> > mfd at pwg.org> > https://www.pwg.org/mailman/listinfo/mfd> >
> >
>>>
--
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/mfd/attachments/20110915/48d89e22/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.pwg.org/pipermail/mfd/attachments/20110915/48d89e22/attachment.htm>