Re: Request for additional object values
Bob Stewart <rlstewart@eng.xyplex.com> Tue, 15 December 1992 20:25 UTC
Received: from ietf.nri.reston.va.us by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa07876;
15 Dec 92 15:25 EST
Received: from CNRI.RESTON.VA.US by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa07872;
15 Dec 92 15:25 EST
Received: from inet-gw-2.pa.dec.com by CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa19236;
15 Dec 92 15:27 EST
Received: by inet-gw-2.pa.dec.com; id AA00468; Tue, 15 Dec 92 12:22:14 -0800
Received: by nsl.pa.dec.com; id AA12501; Tue, 15 Dec 92 12:02:22 -0800
Received: by nsl.pa.dec.com; id AA12497; Tue, 15 Dec 92 12:02:20 -0800
Received: by inet-gw-2.pa.dec.com; id AA28220; Tue, 15 Dec 92 12:01:25 -0800
Received: by xap.xyplex.com id <AA06629@xap.xyplex.com>;
Tue, 15 Dec 92 15:34:23 -0500
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 92 15:34:23 -0500
Message-Id: <9212152034.AA06629@xap.xyplex.com>
Sender: ietf-archive-request@IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US
From: Bob Stewart <rlstewart@eng.xyplex.com>
To: miriam@kadansky.pa.dec.com
Cc: char-mib@pa.dec.com
In-Reply-To: Miriam Kadansky's message of Tue,
15 Dec 92 11:46:50 EST <9212151646.AA08008@kadansky.xyplex.com>
Subject: Re: Request for additional object values
Adding enumerations such as recommended sounds reasonable, as long as they represent a common need. It's getting time we should be looking at Draft Standard status. That would be a good time to add these. 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