Re: Adjacency index Tue, 15 September 1992 15:20 UTC

Received: from by IETF.NRI.Reston.VA.US id aa17132; 15 Sep 92 11:20 EDT
Received: from NRI.NRI.Reston.Va.US by IETF.NRI.Reston.VA.US id aa17128; 15 Sep 92 11:20 EDT
Received: from by NRI.Reston.VA.US id aa05866; 15 Sep 92 11:24 EDT
Received: by; id AA22176; Tue, 15 Sep 92 08:23:40 -0700
Received: by; id AA02550; Tue, 15 Sep 92 08:07:36 -0700
Received: by; id AA02546; Tue, 15 Sep 92 08:07:34 -0700
Received: by; id AA21433; Tue, 15 Sep 92 08:07:33 -0700
Received: by (5.57/ULTRIX-fma-071891); id AA02321; Tue, 15 Sep 92 11:10:21 -0400
Message-Id: <>
To: Debasis Dalapati <>
Subject: Re: Adjacency index
In-Reply-To: Your message of "Fri, 28 Aug 92 17:55:15 EDT." <>
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 92 11:10:20 -0400
Sender: ietf-archive-request@IETF.NRI.Reston.VA.US
X-Mts: smtp


You sent out a note a couple of weeks ago after we finished with the Adjacency
stuff about removing an object from the newly created table.  I do not remember
the discussion we had about this so I am posting your comment below to the
list.  If you can get a group of people to agree, I will remove whichever one
the group wants.  If you have a preference please let me know.
Thanks for all the help


>>Some time back, I asked a question about phivAdjListenTimer and 
>>phivAdjExecListenTimer and my understanding was that phivAdjExecListenTimer
>>could be dropped from the table. Well, there is no harm in keeping it, except
>>myself (and others) could avoid explaning it. :) Just reminding.