Re: DECnet MIB question (3)

saperia@tcpjon.ogo.dec.com Thu, 20 August 1992 14:00 UTC

Received: from ietf.nri.reston.va.us by IETF.NRI.Reston.VA.US id aa02121; 20 Aug 92 10:00 EDT
Received: from NRI.NRI.Reston.Va.US by IETF.NRI.Reston.VA.US id ab02117; 20 Aug 92 10:00 EDT
Received: from inet-gw-2.pa.dec.com by NRI.Reston.VA.US id aa07338; 20 Aug 92 10:01 EDT
Received: by inet-gw-2.pa.dec.com; id AA17464; Thu, 20 Aug 92 07:00:55 -0700
Received: by nsl.pa.dec.com; id AA18054; Thu, 20 Aug 92 06:06:59 -0700
Received: by nsl.pa.dec.com; id AA18050; Thu, 20 Aug 92 06:06:58 -0700
Received: by inet-gw-2.pa.dec.com; id AA14564; Thu, 20 Aug 92 06:06:57 -0700
Received: by tcpjon.ogo.dec.com (5.57/ULTRIX-fma-071891); id AA04813; Thu, 20 Aug 92 09:09:37 -0400
Message-Id: <9208201309.AA04813@tcpjon.ogo.dec.com>
To: Art Berggreen <art@opal.acc.com>
Cc: saperia@tcpjon.ogo.dec.com, phiv-mib@pa.dec.com
Subject: Re: DECnet MIB question (3)
In-Reply-To: Your message of "Wed, 19 Aug 92 14:25:55 PDT." <9208192125.AA13392@opal.acc.com>
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 92 09:09:37 -0400
From: saperia@tcpjon.ogo.dec.com
X-Mts: smtp

Art,

I read your comments about the AdjCircuitIndex and agree that we probably need
to add 1 more object to the Adjacency Table.  I still think this can be done
without multiple indicies (If everyone wants them [two indicies] then we can 
put it in). 

We can rename the phivAdjCircuitIndex to be phivAdjIndex as you suggest with
exactly the same description I put out yesturday.  I agree with your point
about a better connection with circuit.  So -- the object that I would add is
the INDEX value of the Circuit Parameters Table which is PhivCircuitIndex.  I
was going to suggest phivCircuitCommonName from that same table, but thought
that this might be better.  I am suggesting the PhivCircuitIndex as a value in
the adjacency table not as an additional index otherwise we would have two
indicies again - I may be talking myself into having two?

Does anybody else have a preference??

/jon