Re: Request for additional object values
Bob Stewart <rlstewart@eng.xyplex.com> Thu, 17 December 1992 23:19 UTC
Received: from ietf.nri.reston.va.us by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa06197;
17 Dec 92 18:19 EST
Received: from CNRI.RESTON.VA.US by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa06193;
17 Dec 92 18:19 EST
Received: from inet-gw-2.pa.dec.com by CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa04699;
17 Dec 92 18:22 EST
Received: by inet-gw-2.pa.dec.com; id AA29677; Thu, 17 Dec 92 15:22:02 -0800
Received: by nsl.pa.dec.com; id AA15086; Thu, 17 Dec 92 14:44:24 -0800
Received: by nsl.pa.dec.com; id AA15082; Thu, 17 Dec 92 14:44:23 -0800
Received: by inet-gw-2.pa.dec.com; id AA27676; Thu, 17 Dec 92 14:44:20 -0800
Received: by xap.xyplex.com id <AA28405@xap.xyplex.com>;
Thu, 17 Dec 92 18:17:28 -0500
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 92 18:17:28 -0500
Message-Id: <9212172317.AA28405@xap.xyplex.com>
Sender: ietf-archive-request@IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US
From: Bob Stewart <rlstewart@eng.xyplex.com>
To: char-mib@pa.dec.com
In-Reply-To: "Jeremy A. Siegel"'s message of Thu, 17 Dec 1992 14:10:25 -0800
<199212172210.AA09053@ktaadn.NSD.3Com.COM>
Subject: Re: Request for additional object values
>Also another question: doesn't using an enumeration integer like that >imply that the choices are mutually exclusive? Is there a "recommended" >way of dealing with the possibility that both 'hardware' (CTS/RTS) and >XON/XOFF flow-control could be provided simultaneously (possibly even >with pacing (ENQ/ACK) as well)? Hmmm. Good question. Maybe we should wait for SNMPv2 and make this an enumerated bit string. Is this lack a problem in existing implementations? Bob
- Re: Request for additional object values Bob Stewart
- Re: Request for additional object values Jeremy A. Siegel
- Re: Request for additional object values Bob Stewart