>If we were to define another naming scope, say "attributes",
>that reflected object-for-object, the data objects that are
>in our MIBs, then I would be less opposed. To some degree
>we have already started doing this in the
>existing IPP 1.0 printer object attribute set.
The main concern I have with using string named attributes rather than =
the
distinguishing part of the Printer MIB OID is the
processing required to differentiate strings vs. the (relatively short)=
OID
stubs.
Harry Lewis - IBM Printing Systems
=