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@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@underscore.com@internet
> cc: pwg@pwg.org@internet, jmp@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