>There was a question from a vendor using NetBSD the other day, who
>was in need of a sysctl MIB for local use. The suggested top-level
>name was 'vendor', to be used only by vendor-extensions to NetBSD.
>
>The alternative is 'vendor.<vendorname>', but that would mean that
>we'd have to keep the list and register all new names.
>
>Are there any objections to adding the 'vendor' top-level name
>to the sysctl MIBs?

just a stylistic note, but i think that if the vendor top level name
is added, vendors should at least "attempt" to "register" their vendor
name under it and stuff their own mibs underneath *that*.

that way one vendor can completely avoid conflicting with another.
which would most likely be bad.

-- 
|-----< "CODE WARRIOR" >-----|
codewarrior@daemon.org             * "ah!  i see you have the internet
twofsonet@graffiti.com (Andrew Brown)                that goes *ping*!"
andrew@crossbar.com       * "information is power -- share the wealth."