At 14:21 04/28/97 PDT, case at snmp.com wrote:
>>ok, you didn't understand steve's answer, i don't understand my question :-)
>>now that we are communicating, let me try this answer to what question(s)
>i think you have
>>please forgive me if i "insult" you by telling you what you already know
>>please forgive me if i don't answer the right questions
>>all disclaimers in place, we go on now
>>there is no reason i know of to skip over oid arcs
>>first, my understanding is that rfc 1759 uses
>> mib-2.43 printmib
> prtGeneral mib-2.43.5
> prtCover mib-2.43.6 }
> prtLocalization mib-2.43.7
> prtInput mib-2.43.8
> prtOutput mib-2.43.9
> prtMarker mib-2.43.10
> prtMarkerSupplies mib-2.43.11
> prtMarkerColorant mib-2.43.12
> prtMediaPath mib-2.43.13
> prtChannel mib-2.43.14
> prtInterpreter mib-2.43.15
> prtConsoleDisplayBuffer mib-2.43.16
> prtConsoleLights mib-2.43.17
> prtAlert mib-2.43.18
> prtMIBConformance mib-2.43.2
>>no, i have to tell you that this is a bit odd ... usually, one would do
>this
> foomib
> foomib.1 foomibobjects
> foomib.1.1 group 1
> foomib.1.1.1 first object or table in group 1 of foomib
> etc
> foomib.1.2.1 first object or table in group 1 of foomib
> etc
> foomib.2 foomibconformance
> etc
For the Job Monitoring MIB this would be:
jobmonMIB
jobmonMIB.1 jobmonMIBobjects
jobmonMIB.1.1 jmGeneral
jobmonMIB.1.2 jmJobID
jobmonMIB.1.3 jmJobState
jobmonMIB.1.4 jmAttribute
jobmonMIB.2 jobmonMIBconformance
Correct?
>>i think if you history buffs will dig a bit, you will recall that
>the mib had prtGeneral at 1 and the MIF had GeneralPrinter at 2
>>this caused a mismatch/skew
>>as a result, prtGeneral was moved to { printmib 2 } sometime around june of '94
>>steve was consulted, and he said it wouldn't violate any rules, and he
>updated the draft accordingly
>>sometime later, it got moved "farther to the right" as in { printmib 5 }
>and my ability to recollect is imperfect, but i believe it was again
>for the purposes of alignment with the dmtf mif
>>also, if i remember correctly, at least the early drafts of the printer
>mib predate compliance and conformance statements and were stuck in later
>>i don't know why it was put at 2 instead of 19, but it really just does
>not matter
>>it is syntactically correct, it is semantically correct ... it just looks
>and feels a bit wierd
>>i also agree with steve's response about the need for a dot for the
>Table and for the Entry, and that the entry dot is always .1, but i
>perceive that his answer is the right answer to a different question
>>so, the short answer to
>>>Is there any reason to skip over the first few OID arcs and to use
>>arc 2 for the conformance at the end?
>>is no
>>what i don't understand is why you aren't using 19, 20, 21, etc ... things
>"after" the end of the printer mib rather than counting from 1 again
You mean that the Job Monitoring MIB should be using the arcs
after the Printer MIB?
I had thought it would be its own MIB, even though it is being done by
the printmib WG.
>>regards,
>jdc
>>