SACM Operations

[llorenzin]

In the requirements document, we have requirements on the SACM operations (such as publishing, querying, etc.) My impression is that those high-level SACM operations need to be defined in the information model. Do we need to add an Operations section? If not, how will they be defined?

[sacm]

Hi,

I agree that there should be an Operations section in the SACM Info Model.

Cheers,

• Ira

Ira McDonald (Musician / Software Architect)
Co-Chair - TCG Trusted Mobility Solutions WG
Chair - Linux Foundation Open Printing WG
Secretary - IEEE-ISTO Printer Working Group
Co-Chair - IEEE-ISTO PWG Internet Printing Protocol WG
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@gmail.com
Winter 579 Park Place Saline, MI 48176 734-944-0094
Summer PO Box 221 Grand Marais, MI 49839 906-494-2434

On Fri, Jul 17, 2015 at 6:28 PM, llorenzin notifications@github.com wrote:

In the requirements document, we have requirements on the SACM operations
(such as publishing, querying, etc.) My impression is that those high-level
SACM operations need to be defined in the information model. Do we need to
add an Operations section? If not, how will they be defined?

—
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub
#19.

---

sacm mailing list
sacm@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sacm

[jimsch]

I disagree. it makes much more sense for this type of information to be in the architecture document not this one. these are all independent of the IM. The only question would be the attributes needed to discover support, and it is not clear if that is protocol or IM based.

[djhaynes]

I think I would like to see the operations enumerated in the architecture along with descriptions of the different SACM components and their capabilities. From there, we could capture any information needs (e.g. enumerations of capabilities, parameters necessary to support operations, etc.) in the IM. Does that seem reasonable?

[david-waltermire]

+1. In the alternate architecture, Jim and I have started doing some of this. More work is needed to complete this aspect.

Dave

From: Danny Haynes [mailto:notifications@github.com]
Sent: Tuesday, November 01, 2016 1:34 PM
To: sacmwg/draft-ietf-sacm-information-model draft-ietf-sacm-information-model@noreply.github.com
Subject: Re: [sacmwg/draft-ietf-sacm-information-model] SACM Operations (#19)

I think I would like to see the operations enumerated in the architecture along with descriptions of the different SACM components and their capabilities. From there, we could capture any information needs (e.g. enumerations of capabilities, parameters necessary to support operations, etc.) in the IM. Does that seem reasonable?

—
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHubhttps://github.com//issues/19#issuecomment-257634150, or mute the threadhttps://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AJaiaLli7obUXWFSPVYSvKolkDguPoHJks5q53gjgaJpZM4FbBId.

[djhaynes]

Are there any objections to having the operations in the architecture?

Please let me know by 11/8.

If there are no objections, I will move this issue to the architecture issue tracker.

[adammontville]

I haven't any objections at this point.