Adjacency index

"John A. Shriver" <jas@proteon.com> Tue, 25 August 1992 21:59 UTC

Received: from ietf.nri.reston.va.us by IETF.NRI.Reston.VA.US id aa07254; 25 Aug 92 17:59 EDT
Received: from NRI.NRI.Reston.Va.US by IETF.NRI.Reston.VA.US id aa07250; 25 Aug 92 17:59 EDT
Received: from inet-gw-2.pa.dec.com by NRI.Reston.VA.US id aa19530; 25 Aug 92 18:01 EDT
Received: by inet-gw-2.pa.dec.com; id AA26696; Tue, 25 Aug 92 15:00:36 -0700
Received: by nsl.pa.dec.com; id AA18073; Tue, 25 Aug 92 14:30:23 -0700
Received: by nsl.pa.dec.com; id AA18069; Tue, 25 Aug 92 14:30:22 -0700
Received: by inet-gw-2.pa.dec.com; id AA25278; Tue, 25 Aug 92 14:30:20 -0700
Received: from sonny.proteon.com by monk.proteon.com (5.65/1.8)id AA10651; Tue, 25 Aug 92 17:30:33 -0400
Received: by sonny.proteon.com (3.2/SMI-3.2)id AA08821; Tue, 25 Aug 92 17:30:01 EDT
Date: Tue, 25 Aug 92 17:30:01 EDT
From: "John A. Shriver" <jas@proteon.com>
Message-Id: <9208252130.AA08821@sonny.proteon.com>
To: saperia@tcpjon.ogo.dec.com
Cc: phiv-mib@pa.dec.com, phil@shiva.com, dperkins@synoptics.com
In-Reply-To: saperia@tcpjon.ogo.dec.com's message of Tue, 25 Aug 92 16:41:13 -0400 <9208252041.AA04122@tcpjon.ogo.dec.com>
Subject: Adjacency index

Before we worry about how bad it would be to deprecate this part of
the MIB, is there anyone who would have to throw much (or anything)
away if there was a deprecate/redefine done?  If nobody has run into
this problem before, maybe it is because nobody implemented the MIB
yet.

I'll admit that I haven't implemented so much as one line of the
DECnet IV MIB.  (Sorry, but 802.1D was more commercially important.)
Has anyone other than Debasis implemented this adjacency table?

I have come around to agreeing that the double-index is the best
architecture. 

As I am most sure the IETF would agree, it is far better to get the
final result right than let old mistakes fester.