Re: vendor extensions was Re: draft-ietf-forces-model-07 update

>SMI (which I hark back to as a well-established, widely used DDL) uses a
>separate prefix (1.3.6.1.4.1) for the OBJECT IDENTIFIER of vendor-defined 
object
>types but has no convention for the textual name, except that groups of 
related
>object types start with the same lower-case (case is significant) string.
>Surprisingly, given the size that this name space has grown to, I know of 
no
>clashes within these lower-case strings, despite there being no formal 
database
>of them.
currently,protocol draft has an inital assignment on LFB classid in which 
0x00010000-0x7FFFFFFF are reserved for vendor extension,but just as you 
mentions,as the LFB name space growing,this may not be enough,and further 
probably we should enforce an registration on the LFB classid for verdors 
but that lead to an problem like IP address assignment.
According to the LFB class textual names,I prefer the prefix method.
Yours,Fenggen

_________________________________________________________________
璐逛杞 MSN Explorer:   http://explorer.msn.com/lccn