Re: registration OIDs: standardization

[Harrie Hazewinkel <harrie@lisanza.net>]

HI,

On Monday, February 24, 2003, at 02:30 PM, Harrington, David wrote:
> > 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. "
Although, I see the use of it, I also believe this depends a lot
on the device (technology) the MIB module is used for.

Also by promoting such a 'detailed' structure, we could make it
more dificult for an implementors. Thinking of the comments from
people saying that SNMP tables with difficult indexing scheme is
difficult to implement and reuse of code is also difficult.


Not objecting to this detailed structure, but neither promoting it,
let me say 'I am neutral'.
The original 3 oid un xxxMIB is a good thing, I believe.


Harrie
------------------------------------------------------------------
Author of MOD-SNMP, enabling SNMP management of Apache HTTP server