Re: DECnet MIB question (3) -- adjacency Tue, 25 August 1992 16:00 UTC

Received: from by IETF.NRI.Reston.VA.US id aa03115; 25 Aug 92 12:00 EDT
Received: from NRI.NRI.Reston.Va.US by IETF.NRI.Reston.VA.US id aa03111; 25 Aug 92 12:00 EDT
Received: from by NRI.Reston.VA.US id aa09647; 25 Aug 92 12:01 EDT
Received: by; id AA08273; Tue, 25 Aug 92 09:01:05 -0700
Received: by; id AA13300; Tue, 25 Aug 92 08:56:50 -0700
Received: by; id AA13296; Tue, 25 Aug 92 08:56:49 -0700
Received: by; id AA08017; Tue, 25 Aug 92 08:56:48 -0700
Received: by (5.57/ULTRIX-fma-071891); id AA03821; Tue, 25 Aug 92 11:59:18 -0400
Message-Id: <>
To: Phil Budne <>
Subject: Re: DECnet MIB question (3) -- adjacency
In-Reply-To: Your message of "Tue, 25 Aug 92 11:37:31 EDT." <9208251537.AA15198@Shiva.COM>
Date: Tue, 25 Aug 92 11:59:18 -0400
X-Mts: smtp

Phil asks:

>>Can you change the index on a table without deprecating
>>the old one and creating a new and different one
>>(particularly if an RFC has been published)?
The answer in this case is yes.  My interpretation of this is that the
documnet is currently at proposed standard status.  Before it could be moved
forward as a draft, people have to work on implementations.  The change to the
index is a result of people looking at the problem a bit more closely.  So I
see this as a normal part of the evolution.

I also do not think it is a major change.  If others on the list really wanted
to keep the other and deprecate it I suppose we could. I do not feel very
strongly about this - so if there is a big press to deprecate the old and
essentially copy it with a couple of very minor changes (not from a coding
perspective as John would point out) I will do it.