Talk:Intelligent Platform Management Interface

message: Statement has been updated to be factually correct. Reference has been updated to cite external source. Kstrongpr (talk) 22:44, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  May 2018

message: External links to the intel webpage in the text? doesn't seem right.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by AriW (talk • contribs) 22:38, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Intel webpage houses the actual IPMI specification.  So that link is probably legitimate.  The Dell link is far more questionable.Chueleven (talk) 14:28, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

text: Duh, I renamed the link from "Intel website" to "IPMI home website".  Perhaps that makes it clear that this is the home of the IPMI standard, it just happens to be on the Intel website.Chueleven (talk) 15:55, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: December 2008

message: This article reads like a glossary or a technical manual not an encyclopedia article.Pcarter7 15:34, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: July 2007

message: I removed a further reading that pointed to a corporate product.  While the article did provide some generic overview on IPMI, the article covered a significant portion of things specific to the product, including how to configure it using that vendor's own software.  IMO it was too much like an advertisement.  There are many neutral overviews of IPMI on the web that could be substituted instead.Chueleven (talk) 14:46, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Did so again with AMI and AmericanMegaTrends links.Chueleven (talk) 02:03, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: November 2009

message: What is the relationship between IPMB and PMBus?
This article mentions that the Intelligent Platform Management Bus/Bridge (IPMB) is an enhanced version of the I²C bus.
I see that Power Management Bus (PMBus) is based on the System Management Bus (SMBus), and the SMBus is an enhanced version of the I²C bus.
So ... is IPMB a synonym for SMBus or PMBus?
Is IPMB perhaps a further enhanced version of PMBus?
Or is IPMB an (incompatible) alternative to PMBus -- a system might have one or the other, but not both?
Or is IPMB a separate bus from PMBus -- a system might have both on independent I²C wires?
--68.0.124.33 (talk) 14:48, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  PMBus 

message: By allowing OS-level security policies to be bypassed (even when the server is "off"), IPMI presents a potentially huge intrusion vector.  See this article on how servers can be hacked using IPMI.  noosphere 15:27, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  IPMI security vulnerabilities 

message: DMTF's Redfish is an evolution of IPMI and HPI. However, there is no mention of this Redfish on wikipedia, apart from the fishy variety of Redfish! ;-) A new DMTF Redfish page, plus Redfish disambiguation is strongly recommended! External Ref: http://www.dmtf.org/standards/spmf 66.155.23.67 (talk) 09:15, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Redfish 

message: I've opened a discussion about recent WP:ACTUALCOI edits by  regarding this and related articles. The information they provided may be useful, but the claim of "ownership" needs to be reviewed by third-party editors who know about this technology, and backed by a reliable source. GreenReaper (talk) 03:01, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Conflict of interest 

message: Removed the claim of the technology being based on a specific patent as it was based on the author´s interpretation of a primary source alone, as per WP:NOTRS: "All interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary source, rather than original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors."
Minstrel1977 (talk) 19:31, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: , The statement that a particular technology is based on a particular patent requires citation to a reliable secondary source. Otherwise it is an interpretive claim that constitutes original research. See WP:NOTRS. Also as per the Bold, revert, discuss cycle, it is strongly preferred that once edits have been reverted in good faith, editors discuss and try to achieve consensus on the relevant article talk page, not re-revert. DES (talk) 21:45, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  March 2016 - removed patent claim 

message: continues to edit this page to insert claims of patent status, this time unsourced.  I have removed the latest edits and will recommend the user to WP:RVAN after a final additional warning.  Minstrel1977 (talk) 13:10, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Apr 2016 - removed further unsourced patent claims 

message: User "Kalatwai" made massive edits, starting with a reference to RAKP+ being added, how it addresses a particular vulnerability, and how there is "no successful empirical data" on the time involved to crack it.
However, no sources of any kind are used for any of those claims.
97.102.161.34 (talk) 15:30, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  RAKP+ section missing citations? 

message: I added "GNU FreeIMPI" to the "Implementations" section, but perhaps it doesn't belong, since it is software only, not a firmware implementation like the others.  I leave it to others to decide.  BMJ-pdx (talk) 16:30, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is GNU FreeIPMI an "implementation"? 

message: Why does it redirect from RMCP ?
IPMI seems quite different from Remote Mail Checking Protocol...86.194.135.23 (talk) 20:10, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Redirection from RMCP