Subject: PMP> DMTF / CIM -- Printer vendor participation?

From: "Farrell, Lee" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 28 Apr 1997 11:56:26 -0700

In case anyone is interested...

The DMTF just had their annual conference last week.  A major
development that they have been pursuing is the development of a "Common
Information Model" (CIM) that defines a framework for facilitating the
management of objects over the network.

An aggressive schedule (July 31!) has been set to complete the next
phase of work for the CIM in 5 separate areas:
1)  Applications/Software
2)  Network
3)  Device
4)  System
5)  Database

Each of five Working Groups plans to meet 5-6 times between now and the
end of July, with periodic teleconferences between meetings.  One of the
goals for the working groups is to refine the common schema for their
respective area.  Another goal is to create a "mapping" of existing
management schemes (MIFs and MIBs, for example) into the Common
Information Model.

I attended the Device Working Group kickoff meeting.  Because I wasn't
familiar with the content of the Printer MIF, I asked about coordination
with the Printer MIB.  I did not get very warm feelings that this would
be high on their priority list.  However, the leader of the group
requested me to encourage anyone from the PWG to participate with the
DMTF activity.  He felt that the DMTF could benefit from printer-related
expertise.

So, if anyone is interested -- please contact John Keith:
[email-masked]

lee

==================================
Lee Farrell
Canon Information Systems
(714) 438-7163 - voice
(714) 432-1531 - fax
[email-masked]
==================================

---

From: JK Martin <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 28 Apr 1997 15:43:31 -0400 (EDT)

Lee,

Thanks for the heads-up on this new DMTF work.

Did they say anything about the WBEM initiative announced way back last
July?  Seems to me that the WBEM info announced by Microsoft alluded to
some sort of "partnership" of sorts with the DMTF, such that they were
going to share in the development of WBEM (in some way).

Also, was Sun's new Java-based "JMAPI" work discussed for integration?

How about any references to the various CORBA-related activities going
on with net-based management?

Whatever the DMTF comes up with will certainly be interesting to
review.  However, it's hard to imagine that they are doing anything
more than simply reinventing the wheel for the bulk of their effort.

What does their approach offer the world that doesn't already exist in
the other approaches?  Where is the differentiation?  Why would they
roll their own, rather than joining an existing effort?

Lee, I don't expect you to answer most of these questions, but I was
others might be able to shed some light here.

	...jay

---

From: "Farrell, Lee" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 28 Apr 1997 13:28:12 -0700

Responses to Jay's comments below...

lee

>----------
>From: 	JK Martin[SMTP:[email-masked]]
>Sent: 	Monday, April 28, 1997 12:43 PM
>To: 	Farrell, Lee
>Cc: 	[email-masked]
>Subject: 	Re: PMP> DMTF / CIM -- Printer vendor participation?
>
>Lee,
>

Yes, there was much reference to WBEM.  It seems that CIM is just one
component of Microsoft's grand vision for WBEM.  (Originally, it was
called HMMS -- but the DMTF took it over and made it "better."  Now
Microsoft endorses CIM.)  Not surprisingly, Intel (which seems to be
driving most of DMTF) is also a strong supporter of the WBEM initiative.
 More info on WBEM is available at http://wbem.freerange.com/
>Also, was Sun's new Java-based "JMAPI" work discussed for integration?

JMAPI, CORBA, HMM and "Other" were all referenced as alternatives for
exchanging management objects/information.  DMTF claims that all will be
able to take advantage of the CIM model (and vice-versa).  However, I
didn't hear any specifics about JMAPI per se.  Java (and COM and C++)
were referenced as possible options for interfacing between a Management
application and Microsoft's Hypermedia Object Manager (HMOM) -- another
of the WBEM entities.  Evidently, Novell's ManageWise is planning on (or
already has?) some sort of Java-based Management approach.
>on with net-based management?

Again, no real specifics -- just that the CIM model would be useful to
it.  (I can't swear to it, but I got the impression that Tivoli/IBM is
big on CORBA?  Tivoli is a major impetus behind the CIM.)
>roll their own, rather than joining an existing effort?

If I absorbed the message correctly, I think the CIM model is an attempt
to unify (and offer more capability beyond) the current implementations
of SNMP, CMIP, DMI and "Other."  It is more of a focus for enabling
Management applications to be platform and/or device management
implementation independent.  The plan is for individual object providers
to act between the different implementations and the HMOM (via HMMP?).
>others might be able to shed some light here.

I'd like to hear other insights, too.