registration OIDs: standardization

["Harrington, David" <dbh@enterasys.com>]

Hi

Comments inline
-----Original Message-----
From: Andy Bierman [mailto:abierman@cisco.com]
Sent: Saturday, February 22, 2003 2:21 PM
To: C. M. Heard
Cc: Mreview (E-mail)
Subject: Re: registration OIDs: do the values matter?


>> The question I'm asking this group is should it be?  SHOULD (not
>> MUST) all of OID assignments within a module be children of the
>> MODULE-IDENTITY?  

I believe this is good practice

>
>xxxNotifications OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::= { xxxMIB 0 }
>xxxObjects       OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::= { xxxMIB 1 }
>xxxConformance   OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::= { xxxMIB 2 }

>agreed. At Cscio, we are trying to get MIB authors to use [this] approach.

We encourage standardzied subtree structure at Enterasys as well.

I would like to recommend

>xxxNotifications OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::= { xxxMIB 0 }
>xxxObjects       OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::= { xxxMIB 1 }
xxxStatusObjects  OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::= { xxxObjects 1 } -- status and statistics
xxxConfigObjects  OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::= { xxxObjects 2 } -- config and control
>xxxConformance   OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::= { xxxMIB 2 }


This would make it easier to identify configuration objects, in response to section 2.1 of ftp://ftp.rfc-editor.org/in-notes/internet-drafts/draft-iab-nm-workshop-01.txt:

"SNMP does not support easy retrieval and playback of
      configurations.  One part of the problem is that it is not easy to
      identify configuration objects. "

dbh