One correction, the correct PWG Enterprises number is 2699. (I may have
given the wrong number in the meeting. :-(
Ron Bergman
Dataproducts Corp.
On Fri, 7 Nov 1997, Jay Martin wrote:
> Harry Lewis wrote in his posting of the Boulder minutes on the
> JMP list:
>
> > If we go the Informational route we will register the Job MIB under the new
> > PWG OID as follows:
> >
> > PWG OID = ... Private.Enterprises.1699 so the Job MIB will be
> > ... Private.Enterprises.1699.1. The first assignment
> > of the job mib will be
> > ... Private Enterprises.1699.1.1
>
> As you know, we never got around to scheduling a meeting in Boulder
> having to do with the formal process of assigning OIDs to the new
> PWG enterprise tree.
>
> This discussion really belongs on the general PWG mailing list,
> the results of which can and should be used by the JMP project.
>
> 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.)
>
> 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.)
>
> Comments for the PWG at large?
>
> ...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 --
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>