RS-232-like MIB Required Implementation
Todd Short <short@microcom.com> Mon, 29 June 1992 12:38 UTC
Received: from ietf.nri.reston.va.us by IETF.NRI.Reston.VA.US id aa06289;
29 Jun 92 8:38 EDT
Received: from NRI.NRI.Reston.Va.US by IETF.NRI.Reston.VA.US id aa06285;
29 Jun 92 8:38 EDT
Received: from inet-gw-2.pa.dec.com by NRI.Reston.VA.US id aa26482;
29 Jun 92 8:39 EDT
Received: by inet-gw-2.pa.dec.com; id AA21130; Mon, 29 Jun 92 05:38:29 -0700
Received: by nsl.pa.dec.com; id AA07409; Mon, 29 Jun 92 05:37:29 -0700
Received: by inet-gw-1.pa.dec.com; id AA29955; Mon, 29 Jun 92 05:37:16 -0700
Received: from python.microcom.com by uu2.psi.com
(5.65b/4.0.071791-PSI/PSINet)id AA09164; Mon, 29 Jun 92 08:36:12 -0400
Date: Mon, 29 Jun 92 08:35:04 EDT
From: Todd Short <short@microcom.com>
Received: by python.microcom.com (4.1/3.1.090690-Microcom Inc.)id AA08489;
Mon, 29 Jun 92 08:35:04 EDT
Message-Id: <9206291235.AA08489@python.microcom.com>
To: char-mib@pa.dec.com
Subject: RS-232-like MIB Required Implementation
I have an April 1992 copy of RFC-1317 "Definitions of Managed Objects for RS-232-like Hardware Devices". The RFC specifically states that the first part "generic RS-232-like group" is mandatory, and that the Async and sync group/table are mandatory if you have that type of port. However no such status is used for the Input or the Output Signal Table. Are they manda- tory if this MIB is used, or are they optional? The RFC does not state this. Is there anyone who could answer this for me? -Todd Short /* short@python.eng.microcom.com */
- RS-232-like MIB Required Implementation Todd Short
- Re: RS-232-like MIB Required Implementation Bob Stewart
- Re: RS-232-like MIB Required Implementation Bob Stewart