>> On a more technical note, I would suggest that we
>> consider moving the Job MIB down one level in the
>> OID space. I would prefer something like
>>
>> ..... 2699.1.1...... Job Mib
>> ......2699.1.2...... Finisher MIB
>>
>> ...... 2699.2.1 ...... maybe IPP space?
>> ...... 2699.3.1 ..... something else using OID space
>>
>> etc.
>
>What is your thinking here? I mean, what is the significance
>of putting JMP/FIN under ...2699.1 versus having IPP under .3,
>etc? Are you in some way suggesting a set of categories for
>the top-level OID (ie, .2699.1, .2699.2, etc)?
>
>This approach sounds good to me; it's just that I'm trying to
>figure out your plan here.
My suggestion on the structure of the usage of our
Enterprise number is to insure some kind of ordering
and structure to our usage. I would prefer something
like
2699
|
+-------+------...--+
| | | |
1 2 3 n
+---+ +---+ +---+ +----+
| | | | | | | | |
JMP-+ | | | | |
| | | | |
FIN --+ | | | |
| | | |
etc ----+ | | |
| | |
| | |
attributes--+ | |
| |
operations ---+ |
|
etc ------------+
This would allow us to put all the MIB work at one point
(2699.1) and maybe all the IPP at another (2699.2) (maybe
the need for IPP is non-existant but I use it as an example)
and other "types" of objects at other places, properly grouped.
I think this is a better structure than maybe:
2699
|
+-------+------...--+
| | | |
1 2 3 n
+ +---+ + +----+
| | | | |
JMP---+ | | | |
| | | |
attributes -+ | | |
| | |
operations -----+ | |
| |
FIN --------------+ |
|
etc -------------------+
Maybe its my obsessive/compulsive need for order and structure
but that's my intent anyway.
Does that explain it?
Don
**********************************************
* Don Wright don@lexmark.com *
* Manager, Strategic Alliances and Standards *
* Lexmark International *
* 740 New Circle Rd *
* Lexington, Ky 40550 *
* 606-232-4808 (phone) 606-232-6740 (fax) *
**********************************************