PWG> Structuring of the PWG enterprise OID tree

PWG> Structuring of the PWG enterprise OID tree

PWG> Structuring of the PWG enterprise OID tree

Jay Martin jkm at underscore.com
Thu Nov 13 11:37:12 EST 1997


Don,


Well, ok.  I guess all we can derive from your explanation is that
you want to put all MIBs under one subtree, and other "things" in
other subtrees (eg, IPP under a separate top-level subtree).


I guess that's ok...but I sure would like some idea of what the
other "things" might be.  Either way, your approach is certainly
acceptable.


If there are no substantive objections, we shall assume the
approach described by Don (below).


	...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   --
----------------------------------------------------------------------




don at lexmark.com wrote:
> 
> JK Martin said:
> 
> >> On a more technical note, I would suggest that we
> >> consider moving the Job MIB down one level in the
> >> OID space.  I would prefer something like
> >>
> >> ..... 2699.1.1......  Job Mib
> >> ......2699.1.2......  Finisher MIB
> >>
> >> ...... 2699.2.1 ...... maybe IPP space?
> >> ...... 2699.3.1 ..... something else using OID space
> >>
> >> etc.
> >
> >What is your thinking here?  I mean, what is the significance
> >of putting JMP/FIN under ...2699.1 versus having IPP under .3,
> >etc?  Are you in some way suggesting a set of categories for
> >the top-level OID (ie, .2699.1, .2699.2, etc)?
> >
> >This approach sounds good to me; it's just that I'm trying to
> >figure out your plan here.
> 
> My suggestion on the structure of the usage of our
> Enterprise number is to insure some kind of ordering
> and structure to our usage.  I would prefer something
> like
> 
>                   2699
>                     |
>             +-------+------...--+
>             |     |     |       |
>             1     2     3       n
>           +---+ +---+ +---+   +----+
>           | | | | | | | | |
>       JMP-+ | | | | |
>             | | | | |
>       FIN --+ | | | |
>               | | | |
>       etc ----+ | | |
>                 | | |
>                 | | |
>     attributes--+ | |
>                   | |
>     operations ---+ |
>                     |
>     etc ------------+
> 
> This would allow us to put all the MIB work at one point
> (2699.1) and maybe all the IPP at another (2699.2) (maybe
> the need for IPP is non-existant but I use it as an example)
> and other "types" of objects at other places, properly grouped.
> I think this is a better structure than maybe:
> 
>                   2699
>                     |
>             +-------+------...--+
>             |     |     |       |
>             1     2     3       n
>             +   +---+   +    +----+
>             |   |   |   |    |
>       JMP---+   |   |   |    |
>                 |   |   |    |
>     attributes -+   |   |    |
>                     |   |    |
>     operations -----+   |    |
>                         |    |
>       FIN --------------+    |
>                              |
>       etc -------------------+
> 
> Maybe its my obsessive/compulsive need for order and structure
> but that's my intent anyway.
> 
> Does that explain it?
> 
> Don
> 
> **********************************************
> * Don Wright                 don at lexmark.com *
> * Manager, Strategic Alliances and Standards *
> * Lexmark International                      *
> * 740 New Circle Rd                          *
> * Lexington, Ky 40550                        *
> * 606-232-4808 (phone) 606-232-6740 (fax)    *
> **********************************************



More information about the Pwg mailing list