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
>
>