Greetings:
I am submitting the following as a Charter draft for a Web Base Monitoring and Management Working group, in line with the scheduled BOF at the January PWG Plenary. I invite comments. I have also established a directory for materials related to this subject at ftp://ftp.pwg.org/pub/pwg/wsm (Web Services Management).
Harry, can we set up a mailing list so that we don't overload "announce" with project specific comments? Thanks.
Best regards,
Bill Wagner, NetSilicon
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Charter Proposal for
PWG WEB-Based Device Monitoring and Management
Abstract
There exists a need for remote monitoring and maintenance of office imaging devices for several purposes, including:
1. Enterprise management and configuration of equipment in remote offices
2. Service Company monitoring of leased equipment or services for charging and maintenance
3. Equipment Supplier access of sold or leased equipment to maintain and update equipment
This need is has been intensified by the increased complexity of equipment in scattered locations and the need to reduce costs of maintenance and support.
Various mechanisms have been used to provide remote maintenance, including
· telephone hookups, where the equipment calls out on a modem,
· built in radio paging transmitters,
· various network connections, often using a proprietary protocol
Telephone and pager solutions are costly both for the equipment and in recurring charges. Custom network approaches typically require special MIS actions to communicate through the ever-necessary firewall. There is no standardization among the various approaches, so that different implementations are not compatible.
The prevalence of the "Web" and the consistent support of Web Browsers across enterprise, soho and home environments suggest an effective and inexpensive method of addressing this need. Indeed, there are some implementations in place using this mechanism. Using the WEB to allow devices to contact an internet-accessible management server parallels and may indeed compliment the structure resulting from the PSI initiative.
As has been observed in the PSI charter, "When a new problem presents itself ... there will be some initial, proprietary, solutions and some early adopters. Experience shows that standardizing certain critical components of the solution and making the standard freely available assures interoperability among implementations. This ultimately results in the broadest, most competitive market for the new solution. Customer sentiment generally supports and reinforces this experience as long as the standardization effort is concluded in a timely manner and the standardization process yields widespread adoption and demonstrable interoperability."
In keeping with this, it is desirable to formalize the transport use in Web Based Device Monitoring and Management and to standardize the method of communication in an extensible way to allow interoperability between different manufacturers' imaging products and the various data base and management programs involved in the remote monitoring and management.
In accord with this general objective, the working group should address:
Monitoring (both on an alert and a periodic basis)
Monitoring Configuration (identifying attributes to be monitored, frequency of monitoring, conditions for reporting)
Management (configuring and/or controlling operation of the device)
Transfer of files to the Device (communicating executable updates, fonts, options, address lists etc, along with the instructions of what to do with these files)
The implementation of these functions must address:
1. Costs
2. Security
3. Operability within typical enterprise network constraints
4. Compatibility with existing data base and management capabilities
5. Compatibility with existing and anticipated infrastructure, including MIBs, the Semantic Model and PSI.
6. Support of the installed equipment base as well as providing for inclusion in future equipment
To the extent possible, the working group should utilize protocols, techniques and procedures already in place, both to leverage extant technology and to avoid conflict with or infringement upon proprietary solutions. To this end, it should be aware of the work of the following organizations, as well as any publicly documented proprietary solutions.
· IETF xmlconf activity (http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/02jul/index.html)
· IETF webdav (http://www.ietf.org/html.charters/webdav-charter.html)
· IETF BEEP (The Blocks Extensible Exchange Protocol Core {RFC 3080})(Mapping the BEEP Core onto TCP {RFC 3081})
· OASIS (https://www.oasis-open.org/committees/mgmtprotocol/)
Milestones
Because of increased activity in this area and the increasing deployment of proprietary approaches, it is important that the standardization activity proceed forthwith. On the other hand, the various aspects must be given adequate consideration. The following schedule should be achievable, but may be to long. It is suggested that the working group consider developing and disseminating a Monitoring Specification first, and then proceeding to a full specification of the standard including more general Management capabilities.
Charter Stage
BOF and Charter Discussion January 2003
Requirements Statement February 2003
Charter Formal Approval March 2003
Requirements Formal Approval March 2003
Analysis Stage
Consideration of Similar Initiatives May 2003
Selection of Component Protocols
and Techniques June 2002
Specification Stage
Presentation of Initial Draft July 2003
Proposed Draft Standard Last Call October 2003
Draft Standard Formal Approval December 2002
Interoperability Event Q1 2004
Proposed Standard Last Call Q2 2004
Published Standard Q2 2004