Tom Hastings said:
>3. If we add some structure, we will have to write it down, agree to it,
>maintain it, etc. The flat approach requires no such additional document,
>effort, or agreement. We can publish the Job Monitoring MIB immediately
>with no further discussion.
Imagine that! Thinking about what we are doing before doing it. I'd
rather set a direction that is flexible and usable up front rather than
setting and re-setting it every other month.
>4. I have lived through two corporations attempting to set up structure:
>Digital and Xerox. In both cases, none of the rest of the structure
>got used. Its too hard to predict the future. So defining structure
>is a waste of time and does not help anything.
One of the core concepts of the OID space is to allow for distribution
name space administration. I guess the PWG must be at the end of the
world and therefore there is no future reason to worry about
distributed name space management beyond us and our OID!
I set up the Lexmark OID space and management process; it uses a
hierarchical approach. I happy with the results.
>6. Its shortest in number of OIDs over the wire.
Who cares about this small difference? Are they charging for electrons
these days?
**********************************************
* Don Wright don at lexmark.com *
* Product Manager, Strategic Alliances *
* Lexmark International *
* 740 New Circle Rd *
* Lexington, Ky 40550 *
* 606-232-4808 (phone) 606-232-6740 (fax) *
**********************************************