Subject: JMP> 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)    *
**********************************************

---

From: Jay Martin <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 23 Jan 1998 13:09:47 -0500

> is a waste of time and does not help anything.

I wish your observations would be equally applied to the development
of protocol standards, too.  Too much up-front complexity helps very
few people, and usually causes serious delays in deployment of the
final standard within products.

	...jay

----------------------------------------------------------------------
--  JK Martin               |  Email:   [email-masked]          --
--  Underscore, Inc.        |  Voice:   (603) 889-7000              --
--  41C Sagamore Park Road  |  Fax:     (603) 889-2699              --
--  Hudson, NH 03051-4915   |  Web:     http://www.underscore.com   --
----------------------------------------------------------------------

---

From: Tom Hastings <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 23 Jan 1998 15:20:38 PST

>setting and re-setting it every other month.

Actually, we have been trying to write something down for two months
already and changing it every time.  I am afraid that this will continue.

With the flat scheme we are done now. We don't need to write down
anything.  We don't need to continue this debate.  And we won't
have to change anything each month.

Each need for a PWG OID gets to define their
own sub-structure (as the Job Mon MIB has done following standard
MIB practice).  This is the ultimate in flexibility and there is
no need to continue this debate with a flat structure.

Also continuing this debate will futher delay getting this MIB to
the IESG and getting them to assign an RFC.

Putting it another way, setting up a structure, writing it down, 
reviewing it, agreeing to it, maintaining it, is buracracy that the PWG
doesn't need.

So far, I haven't seen one advantage to having more structure and
a lot of disadvantages:

1.  Its process overhead that we don't need.

2.  It will further delay the Job Monitoring MIB.

3.  It doesn't buy anything.

4.  It has the risk of not being exactly what the future will want/need.

Can you state one advantage to having more structure?

>hierarchical approach.  I happy with the results.

What advantages did it give you?

How many OIDs have you assigned?

>Who cares about this small difference?  Are they charging for electrons

I agree that it is a small point (that is why I put it last).

---

From: Tom Hastings <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 23 Jan 1998 15:20:38 PST