Re: Zone change related value for atportStatus

Phil Budne <phil@shiva.com> Fri, 30 April 1993 18:46 UTC

Date: Fri, 30 Apr 1993 14:21:03 -0400
Sender: ietf-archive-request@IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US
From: Phil Budne <phil@shiva.com>
Message-Id: <9304301821.AA28976@Shiva.COM>
To: Robert_Jeckell@3mail.3com.com, apple-ip@cayman.com
Subject: Re: Zone change related value for atportStatus
Cc: phil@shiva.com

	Date: Fri, 30 Apr 93 09:36 PDT
	From: Robert_Jeckell@3mail.3com.com
	To: apple-ip@Cayman.COM

	Maybe the value ought to be more generic, like
	zonelistChangeInProgress, with further state information
	relevant to the process kept in the optional zonelist change
	group (or other MIB).

	/bob

I concur; If new states might be of use to a zone change MIB, then
they should be reserved WITHOUT any defined semantics.

Maybe there should be a new "atPortInfo" member which is defined as an
OID, so that additional state information can be added at a later
date?

"onHold" was never well enough defined for my tastes, and putting it
back in without enough time to clearly define the semantics is asking
for lots of interpretations!!

-p

Zone change related value for atportStatus Robert_Jeckell
Re: Zone change related value for atportStatus Phil Budne