Re: DECnet MIB question (3) Thu, 20 August 1992 14:00 UTC

Received: from 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 by NRI.Reston.VA.US id aa07338; 20 Aug 92 10:01 EDT
Received: by; id AA17464; Thu, 20 Aug 92 07:00:55 -0700
Received: by; id AA18054; Thu, 20 Aug 92 06:06:59 -0700
Received: by; id AA18050; Thu, 20 Aug 92 06:06:58 -0700
Received: by; id AA14564; Thu, 20 Aug 92 06:06:57 -0700
Received: by (5.57/ULTRIX-fma-071891); id AA04813; Thu, 20 Aug 92 09:09:37 -0400
Message-Id: <>
To: Art Berggreen <>
Subject: Re: DECnet MIB question (3)
In-Reply-To: Your message of "Wed, 19 Aug 92 14:25:55 PDT." <>
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 92 09:09:37 -0400
X-Mts: smtp


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??