Subject: PWG> Formal PWG process for assigning PWG enterprise numbers

From: Jay Martin <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 07 Nov 1997 19:03:44 -0500

Harry Lewis wrote in his posting of the Boulder minutes on the
JMP list:

> If we go the Informational route we will register the Job MIB under the new
> PWG OID as follows:
> 
>  PWG OID = ... Private.Enterprises.1699 so the Job MIB will be
>            ... Private.Enterprises.1699.1. The first assignment
>                                            of the job mib will be
>            ... Private Enterprises.1699.1.1

As you know, we never got around to scheduling a meeting in Boulder
having to do with the formal process of assigning OIDs to the new
PWG enterprise tree.

This discussion really belongs on the general PWG mailing list,
the results of which can and should be used by the JMP project.

I'm a bit confused by your posted text, thinking that part of it
may be a typo.  (That is, the comments seem a bit strange.)

Notwithstanding, if I read you correctly, you're suggesting that the
Job Monitoring MIB assume the ".1" position under the PWG tree.  I
tend to agree with this approach, that a particular project would be
assigned a top-level number in the tree, assuming OID assignments are
required by the project.  (That is, just because a PWG project exists
doesn't mean that a top-level OID is assigned to it; instead, only
if the project *requires* such OIDs would the assignment be made.)

Comments for the PWG at large?

	...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: Ron Bergman <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 10 Nov 1997 08:06:01 -0800 (Pacific Standard Time)

The assignment of projects which require the new PWG Enterprises OID was
discussed in Boulder in the JMP meeting.  The minutes do reflect the
agreement in the meeting.  I agree with Jay that comments from the PWG in
general should be requested before this becomes official.  I request that
all comments be submitted by Friday, November 14th.

One correction, the correct PWG Enterprises number is 2699.  (I may have
given the wrong number in the meeting. :-(

	Ron Bergman
	Dataproducts Corp.