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