<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0//EN" "http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/strict.dtd"><html><head><meta name="qrichtext" content="1" /><style type="text/css">p, li { white-space: pre-wrap; }</style></head><body style=" font-family:'Lucida Console'; font-size:9pt; font-weight:400; font-style:normal;">On Donnerstag, 1. Oktober 2009, Olle E. Johansson wrote:<br>
> >> I still want to have a discussion about the last part above - why<br>
> >> are we not using the standard SIP mib where we can?<br>
> ><br>
> > Well, I think we should use the standard SIP mibs where they are<br>
> > available.<br>
><br>
> Anyone else in the developer community with any insights/opinions?<br>
<p style="-qt-paragraph-type:empty; margin-top:0px; margin-bottom:0px; margin-left:0px; margin-right:0px; -qt-block-indent:0; text-indent:0px; -qt-user-state:0;"><br></p>Hi Olle,<br>
<p style="-qt-paragraph-type:empty; margin-top:0px; margin-bottom:0px; margin-left:0px; margin-right:0px; -qt-block-indent:0; text-indent:0px; -qt-user-state:0;"><br></p>i also think that using the existing standard SIP mibs would be better then this custom tree.<br>
<p style="-qt-paragraph-type:empty; margin-top:0px; margin-bottom:0px; margin-left:0px; margin-right:0px; -qt-block-indent:0; text-indent:0px; -qt-user-state:0;"><br></p>> >> Also, maybe we should reorganize the mib so that we suballocate for<br>
> >> future use outside of snmp<br>
> >><br>
> >> kamailiooid.10 SNMP<br>
> >> kamailiooid.20 LDAP<br>
> >><br>
> >> Right now I believe we're using the full OID directly for snmp<br>
> >> subclasses.<br>
> >><br>
> >> Anyone that has experience of organizing OID trees that can give<br>
> >> some input?<br>
> >><br>
> >> We can't change it in every release, as we will propably break<br>
> >> existing scripts and management platforms, so we will have to try<br>
> >> to do it right while we're messing with it :-)<br>
> ><br>
> > OK, but since I haven't been using it heavily, I cannot say how is<br>
> > better to have the OID trees. Therefore I can help a bit more with<br>
> > messing that with doing it right from first time :-) .<br>
><br>
> My thinking is that we might at some point end up having to specify<br>
> our own LDAP schemas. Having a nicely build OID tree makes it more<br>
> simple to handle this, since LDAP schemas use OIDs as identifiers as<br>
> well. I guess that other developers can come up other protocols that<br>
> use OIDs too :-)<br>
><br>
> Any more input from the rest of the crowd before I move ahead and<br>
> start messing with this?<br>
<p style="-qt-paragraph-type:empty; margin-top:0px; margin-bottom:0px; margin-left:0px; margin-right:0px; -qt-block-indent:0; text-indent:0px; -qt-user-state:0;"><br></p>I did not used snmp that much, and even less ldap, so i can't really judge on this question, sorry. ;)<br>
<p style="-qt-paragraph-type:empty; margin-top:0px; margin-bottom:0px; margin-left:0px; margin-right:0px; -qt-block-indent:0; text-indent:0px; -qt-user-state:0;"><br></p>Henning</p></body></html>