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 alternati=
ves.
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
=