Jay,
On Mon, 10 Nov 1997, Jay Martin wrote:
> Hmmm... I'm not so sure that it's best to subdivide the OID space
> based on the project *group* name. Rather, an OID subtree should
> be assigned to the specific *standard* being developed.
>The above was also the consensus of the group in Boulder and is the
current plan, unless a better solution is suggested.
Ron Bergman
> 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 at 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 at underscore.com@internet
> > cc: pwg at pwg.org@internet, jmp at 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
>