Subject: PWG> PWG OID Structure Proposals [the case for a flat structure]

From: [email-masked]
Date: Fri, 23 Jan 1998 12:53:33 -0500

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                 [email-masked] *
* Product Manager, Strategic Alliances       *
* Lexmark International                      *
* 740 New Circle Rd                          *
* Lexington, Ky 40550                        *
* 606-232-4808 (phone) 606-232-6740 (fax)    *
**********************************************