PMP Mail Archive: RE: PMP> [delete ppmPrinterEnabled] Restru

PMP Mail Archive: RE: PMP> [delete ppmPrinterEnabled] Restru

RE: PMP> [delete ppmPrinterEnabled] Restructured Port MIB (18 Jul y 2005)

From: Wijnen, Bert (Bert) (bwijnen@lucent.com)
Date: Mon Aug 01 2005 - 02:29:02 EDT

  • Next message: thrasher@lexmark.com: "RE: PMP> Updated PortMON MIB specification (that includes the res tructured 20050728 mib)"

    Inline

    > -----Original Message-----
    > From: McDonald, Ira [mailto:imcdonald@sharplabs.com]
    > Sent: Sunday, July 31, 2005 19:42
    > To: 'Wijnen, Bert (Bert)'; McDonald, Ira; 'thrasher@lexmark.com';
    > Bergman, Ron
    > Cc: pmp@pwg.org
    > Subject: RE: PMP> [delete ppmPrinterEnabled] Restructured Port MIB (18
    > Jul y 2005)
    >
    >
    > Hi Bert,
    >
    > You're right of course. We haven't before wrestled with OID
    > assignment by the PWG for MIBs. In fact only the IEEE-ISTO PWG
    > Secretary (currently Jerry Thrasher of Lexmark) has the authority
    > to assign/approve the base MIB arc when the Candidate Standard
    > is published.
    >
    Good to hear

    > In the future, we'll adopt the 'nnnn -- to be assigned by PWG'
    > approach. Of course, when we have a prototyping interop test,
    > we'll have to choose _something_ for an experimental number
    > (for documents still in working drafts stage).
    >
    > What do the IETF chartered working groups do during development?
    > Do they very use 'experimental' for this?
    >

    Some WGs use experimental (but even in those cases I recommend to
    no reorder/change OID assignments; but of course we're not strict on
    checking that; it is experimental after all). Some WGs agree on some
    vendor subtree for the testing event only, so after the event it
    goes back to nnnn up till approval.

    Hope this helps,
    Bert
    > Cheers,
    > - Ira



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Aug 01 2005 - 02:28:51 EDT