To: pmi@hpbs987.boi.hp.com From: Tom Hastings Subject: X/Open Event Management System (XEMS) spec V0.2 available Cc: Bcc: bafghani, ereveche, sun@wrc.xerox.com, hnguyen.lax1b@xerox.com X-Attachments: SENSE folks, I stumbled across this mail message from Martin Kirk, of X/Open, indicating that X/Open is willing to make its draft available. There was only one dissenting comment against making the document available. It cautioned against trying to increase the scope of XEMS. I've put the spec and this mail into: ftp://ftp-out.external.hp.com/snmpmib/sense/xopen/xems.ps I hope you can access it in time for your SENSE meeting tommorrow and Thursday. NOTE also that the OMG is also working on an event notification services standard. I'm sorry that I won't be able to attend. Tom Return-Path: X-Sender: martin@xopuk.xopen.co.uk (Unverified) Date: Tue, 23 Jan 1996 07:07:13 PST To: XoTGsysMan@xopen.co.uk From: Martin Kirk Subject: (XoTGsysMan 2584) XEMS/XTMS availability Sender: XoTGsysMan-request@xopen.co.uk Comments: (XoTGsysMan 2584) Following on from the OMG meeting, I have had a significant number of requests from people who would like to take a look at what we are doing with XEMS, and to a lesser extent XTMS. In addition, the IETF/DMTF Printer Working Group (PWG) is in the process of working on their own event service and would like to know what we are doing. Unless anyone has any major (well-argued and rationale) objections, I propose to make a suitably over-printed version of XEMS available at the beginning of next week, so that folk like PWG and the OMG TelSIG can take a look at it and hopefully give us useful feedback. I think that this is an important step to take in building a climate of awareness for this important project. As regards XTMS, clearly we can't do anything similar until we have at least adopted a base document. Let me know if you have any objections about my proposed XEMS actions. Martin ------------------------------------------------------------------- X/Open Company Limited Martin Kirk Apex Plaza, Forbury Road Development Manager Reading, UK, RG1 1AX Tel: +44 1734 508311 x2258 Fax: +44 1734 500110 Distributed Systems Management EMail: m.kirk@xopen.co.uk Base Program Home: +44 1635 42888 X/Open and the X device are trademarks of X/Open Company Limited. UNIX is a registered trade mark in the United States and other countries, licensed exclusively through X/Open Company Limited. ------------------------------------------------------------------- Return-Path: Date: Tue, 23 Jan 1996 08:40:18 PST From: Mike.Gionfriddo@central.sun.com (Michael Gionfriddo) To: XoTGsysMan@xopen.co.uk Subject: (XoTGsysMan 2586) Re: (XoTGsysMan 2584) XEMS/XTMS availability X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: XoTGsysMan-request@xopen.co.uk Comments: (XoTGsysMan 2586) Since XEMS is really a base document, I am not opposed to sending out the overall architecture, but I am _very_ nervous about us sending out interfaces. Here are the reasons (Martin, you can determine if they are well-argured and rationale :-)). - There are a number of places where the interfaces have potential to change in regards to the abstractions they provide. I have noted a number of these on my draft and plan on feeding these into the working group. - I think there is still a good deal of discussion around the security model. Talking with some folks, I believe this is an area that could change significantly. - I am still uncomfortable about _exactly_ how we resolve the XEMS and the OMG notification service. This is my fault I have not had time to study the latest drafts of these two sets of interfaces. - XEMS has as much if not more folks involved than XSMS/XCFM and it changed _significantly_ over the base development work. Geeze, we took XCFM from one vendor and we are try to merge the ideas of four vendors in XEMS. Given all the above, a generalize event service for the granularity and frequency of system management events. I would really question that what we are spec is good for performance monitoring and implementing a MVC model for applications. I honestly believe the PMWG and OMG TelSig would place requirements on this service which it is not meant to address. There are a number of general event models (X has one for handling window events, OSI/CMIP has one for networking type events, etc.), but they are focused on a specific domain. If we are going to release this outside the scope of X/Open members, we need to qualify the problem this service addresses and be very careful about stating any of the interfaces are even being close to stable. From a SysMan perspective, I would error on the side of caution. Sorry I missed the discussions surronding these topics at San Diego, hopefully I can be more engaged starting in February. Cheers! _/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/ _/ Mike Gionfriddo mgion@rmtc.central.sun.com _/ _/ Sun Microsystems Voice: +1.719.528.4679 _/ _/ Rocky Mountain Technology Center Fax: +1.719.548.1009 _/ _/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/