JMP> PWG> Formal PWG process for assigning PWG enterprise numbers

JMP> PWG> Formal PWG process for assigning PWG enterprise numbers

JMP> PWG> Formal PWG process for assigning PWG enterprise numbers

Ron Bergman rbergma at dpc.com
Mon Nov 10 11:50:04 EST 1997


Jay,


On Mon, 10 Nov 1997, Jay Martin wrote:


> Hmmm... I'm not so sure that it's best to subdivide the OID space
> based on the project *group* name.  Rather, an OID subtree should
> be assigned to the specific *standard* being developed.
> 
The above was also the consensus of the group in Boulder and is the
current plan, unless a better solution is suggested.


	Ron Bergman




> Do you really think there is value in having a tree level for the
> specific group (for example, "JMP" or "FIN")?  Seems like a waste
> of a tree level to me.
> 
> Comments from others?
> 
> 	...jay
> 
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> --  JK Martin               |  Email:   jkm at underscore.com          --
> --  Underscore, Inc.        |  Voice:   (603) 889-7000              --
> --  41C Sagamore Park Road  |  Fax:     (603) 889-2699              --
> --  Hudson, NH 03051-4915   |  Web:     http://www.underscore.com   --
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 
> Harry Lewis wrote:
> > 
> > Tried to send Friday... don't see in archives, so must have been mail problem.
> > Again, sorry I exclude this from the minutes... but, below, is an overview of
> > the Boulder discussion...
> > 
> > Harry Lewis - IBM Printing Systems
> > 
> > ------- Forwarded by Harry Lewis/Boulder/IBM on 11/10/97 09:31 AM ------
> > 
> > Harry Lewis
> > 11/07/97 11:13 PM
> > To: jkm at underscore.com@internet
> > cc: pwg at pwg.org@internet, jmp at pwg.org@internet
> > From: Harry Lewis/Boulder/IBM @ IBMUS
> > Subject: PWG> Formal PWG process for assigning PWG enterprise numbers
> > 
> > Jay, sorry if mixing notes with OIDs in the minutes was confusing.
> > Unfortunately, my minutes, this month, are a fairly raw form of
> > discussion captured from the meeting.
> > 
> > >I'm a bit confused by your posted text, thinking that part of it
> > >may be a typo.  (That is, the comments seem a bit strange.)
> > 
> > You go on to say...
> > 
> > >Notwithstanding, if I read you correctly, you're suggesting that the
> > >Job Monitoring MIB assume the ".1" position under the PWG tree.  I
> > >tend to agree with this approach, that a particular project would be
> > >assigned a top-level number in the tree, assuming OID assignments are
> > >required by the project.  (That is, just because a PWG project exists
> > >doesn't mean that a top-level OID is assigned to it; instead, only
> > >if the project *requires* such OIDs would the assignment be made.)
> > 
> > I should have included, in the minutes, that we discussed two alternatives.
> > I proposed a structured registry under the PWG enterprise OID based
> > (simply) on PWG projects.
> > 
> > PRIVATE
> >   ENTERPRISE
> >     PWG
> >       JMP
> >         JOBMIB
> >           JMGROUP1
> >           JMGROUP2
> >           (etc)
> >         (ETC)
> >       FIN
> >         FINMIB
> >           FNGROUP1
> >           FNGROUP2
> >           (etc)
> >         (ETC)
> >       (etc)
> > 
> > There didn't seem to be much favor over a flat registration of whatever
> > comes along.
> > 
> > PRIVATE
> >   ENTERPRISE
> >     PWG
> >       JOBMIB
> >         JMGROUP1
> >         JMGROUP2
> >          (etc)
> >       FINMIB
> >         FNGROUP1
> >         FNGROUP2
> >         (etc)
> >       (ETC)
> > 
> > (Note, it is not yet decided whether the Finisher MIB will stand alone
> > or extend the Printer MIB, so FIN may have been a bad example).
> > 
> > I suppose the topic is still open to e-mail discussion, if appropriate.
> > 
> > Harry Lewis
> 



More information about the Pwg mailing list