On Donnerstag, 1. Oktober 2009, Olle E. Johansson wrote:
I still want to have a discussion about the last part above - why are we not using the standard SIP mib where we can?
Well, I think we should use the standard SIP mibs where they are available.
Anyone else in the developer community with any insights/opinions?
Hi Olle,
i also think that using the existing standard SIP mibs would be better then this custom tree.
Also, maybe we should reorganize the mib so that we suballocate for future use outside of snmp
kamailiooid.10 SNMP kamailiooid.20 LDAP
Right now I believe we're using the full OID directly for snmp subclasses.
Anyone that has experience of organizing OID trees that can give some input?
We can't change it in every release, as we will propably break existing scripts and management platforms, so we will have to try to do it right while we're messing with it :-)
OK, but since I haven't been using it heavily, I cannot say how is better to have the OID trees. Therefore I can help a bit more with messing that with doing it right from first time :-) .
My thinking is that we might at some point end up having to specify our own LDAP schemas. Having a nicely build OID tree makes it more simple to handle this, since LDAP schemas use OIDs as identifiers as well. I guess that other developers can come up other protocols that use OIDs too :-)
Any more input from the rest of the crowd before I move ahead and start messing with this?
I did not used snmp that much, and even less ldap, so i can't really judge on this question, sorry. ;)
Henning