Re: RFC 1289 and Phase IV-Prime questions and nasty "-"

Rick Watson <> Thu, 03 December 1992 17:07 UTC

Received: from by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa05426; 3 Dec 92 12:07 EST
Received: from CNRI.RESTON.VA.US by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa05422; 3 Dec 92 12:07 EST
Received: from by CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa16540; 3 Dec 92 12:08 EST
Received: by; id AA23299; Thu, 3 Dec 92 09:05:03 -0800
Received: by; id AA15603; Thu, 3 Dec 92 08:44:16 -0800
Received: by; id AA15599; Thu, 3 Dec 92 08:44:16 -0800
Received: by; id AA22118; Thu, 3 Dec 92 08:44:15 -0800
Received: by; Thu, 3 Dec 92 08:44:14 -0800
Date: Thu, 3 Dec 92 08:44:14 -0800
Sender: ietf-archive-request@IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US
From: Rick Watson <>
Message-Id: <>
Subject: Re: RFC 1289 and Phase IV-Prime questions and nasty "-"

Phase IV' (prime) and Phase IV+ (plus) are not the same thing.
The naming of these extensions to Phase IV is somewhat

Phase IV+ includes the extensions for multipath routing. It is
difficult to get an official copy of this specification. 

Phase IV' includes the specification for DECnet on Token Ring. I think
this spec has now been officially published and is available. 

Rick Watson

> >I have been asked if 1289 is going to be modified to include Phase IV-Prime
> >functions before it is spun to Draft Standard status.
> "Phase IV-Prime", "Phase IV-Plus", What is the official DEC nomenclature
> (if there is one)?
> >My current view is that the MIB was created to instrument a specific set of
> >functions and that I would like not to add any more objects or groups to this
> >mib for Phase IV-Prime.  The only thing that would convince me that we should
> >add the new functions is if there were a public demand for these new
> >features on this list.
> >
> >So.. unless people speak up to the contrary stating that they have Phase 
> >IV-Prime implementations and they really want to add the instrumentation with
> >new MIB elements, I would be reluctant to add them to this MIB.  In fact, a
> >new working group would probably have to be formed anyway to do the work.
> Unless DEC can be persuaded to publish the Phase IV-Prime extensions
> (something I'd really like done), I don't think it's a good idea to
> base part of a MIB on undocumented protocol extensions (even if they
> have generally been figured out).
> Art