Subject: PWG> Re: JMP> Structuring of the PWG enterprise OID tree

From: Harry Lewis <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 2 Dec 1997 15:54:32 -0500

Tom, I like your idea for experimental and standard. My only question is what
triggers a standard registration and when do we expect this for the Job MIB?

Harry Lewis

----- Forwarded by Harry Lewis ------

[email-masked] on 12/02/97 12:54:27 PM
Please respond to [email-masked] @ internet
To: [email-masked] @ internet, [email-masked] @ internet
cc: [email-masked] @ internet, [email-masked] @ internet
Subject: PWG> Re: JMP> Structuring of the PWG enterprise OID tree

I started to edit the Job Monitoring MIB with the PWG standard OIDs
as proposed, even though I preferred Harry's flat OID approach.

However, when discussing how to write it in SNMP ASN.1 with Ira,
we realized that maybe the PWG ought to distinguish between
PWG experimental OIDs and PWG standard OIDs, just like with the
IETF MIBs.

So we propose the following:

Under iso(1) org(3) dod(6) internet(1) private(4) enterprises(1)

we have separate trees for PWG experimental and PWG standard:

pwg(2699) pwgstandard(1) jobmon(1)
pwg(2699) pwgexperimental(2) jobmon(1)

Our current jobmon MIB is so near to becoming a PWG standard that
we don't need this distinction.  We haven't changed an OID during the
last six months of drafts.  However, just to be safe, I'm going to
publish the next draft using the pwgexperimental(2) arc.  Then if we
decide that the above OID scheme isn't any good, we can change it.
Experimental OIDs are free to be changed from draft to draft, but
standard ones are not.

The idea of pwgstandard OIDs is that the OIDs never change after being
published, just like the IETF.  (Adding new OIDs can be done to
standards, that is NOT changing published OIDs).

We also propose NOT to asign arc to PWG projects, but to actual PWG
needs, in this case the jobmon mib.  Thus a project can get one or
more arcs assigned, depending on its needs.  Also OIDs can be assigned
for non-MIB purposes as well.

Another advantage to this approach, is that we don't need to decide
now what categories we might want in the future.

Ok?

Tom

---

From: Harry Lewis <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 2 Dec 1997 19:07:20 -0500

I agree with Jay's improvements on Tom's proposal. I also feel we are far
enough along with the Job MIB to skip Experimental. In all, however, I think we
need to lay down a process for going from Experimental to Standard including
any last call, bakeoff, internet informational RFC and subsequent IETF
timelines etc. I am very interested in getting to the point of a standard job
mib. I don't want to loose sight of the fact that this is our opportunity to
establish a viable process for the new PWG standards body !

Harry Lewis - IBM Printing Systems

---------------------- Forwarded by Harry Lewis/Boulder/IBM on 12/02/97 04:47 PM
 ---------------------------

[email-masked] on 12/02/97 03:44:39 PM
Please respond to [email-masked] @ internet
To: Harry Lewis/Boulder/IBM@ibmus
cc: [email-masked] @ internet, [email-masked] @ internet, [email-masked]
@ internet
Subject: Re: PWG> Re: JMP> Structuring of the PWG enterprise OID tree

Tom,

> pwg(2699) pwgexperimental(2) jobmon(1)

How about more simple words, such as:

pwg(2699) standard(1) jobmon(1)
pwg(2699) experimental(2) jobmon(1)

That is, there is no real value in having the "pwg" prefix.

The more I think of it, though, I don't think we need to have
an explicit "standard" tree.  Instead--just like the IETF--we
have an "experimental" subtree, but all other trees at that
level represent "standard" assignments.  This means we end up
with (for example):

pwg(2699) jobmon(1)
pwg(2699) experimental(2) jobmon(1)

Btw, I also agree with you that it is quite unnecessary to put
the Job MIB under an "experimental" tree at this point.  Let's
just assign the final, "standard" tree and be done with it.

 ...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   --
----------------------------------------------------------------------