Implementation Survey
Jon Saperia <saperia@tcpjon.tay.dec.com> Tue, 18 May 1993 13:34 UTC
Received: from ietf.nri.reston.va.us by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa03029; 18 May 93 9:34 EDT
Received: from CNRI.RESTON.VA.US by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa03025; 18 May 93 9:34 EDT
Received: from inet-gw-2.pa.dec.com by CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa07164; 18 May 93 9:34 EDT
Received: by inet-gw-2.pa.dec.com; id AA25902; Tue, 18 May 93 06:34:26 -0700
Received: by nsl.pa.dec.com; id AA15063; Tue, 18 May 93 06:24:37 -0700
Received: by nsl.pa.dec.com; id AA15059; Tue, 18 May 93 06:24:37 -0700
Received: by pobox1.pa.dec.com; id AA10714; Tue, 18 May 93 06:24:33 -0700
Received: by tcpjon.tay.dec.com (5.57/ULTRIX-fma-071891); id AA06929; Tue, 18 May 93 09:28:22 -0400
Message-Id: <9305181328.AA06929@tcpjon.tay.dec.com>
To: phiv-mib@pa.dec.com
Cc: saperia@tcpjon.tay.dec.com
Subject: Implementation Survey
Date: Tue, 18 May 1993 09:28:22 -0400
Sender: ietf-archive-request@IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US
From: Jon Saperia <saperia@tcpjon.tay.dec.com>
X-Mts: smtp
On Friday May 14, the final review period for the DECNet Phase IV MIB expired. During that time, there were no requests posted to this list for changes to the existing MIB beyond those we have already discussed. I have observed a couple of comments for additions for Token Ring. Given the scope of that project, I am recommending that effort be taken up separately, and if a need for a standard set of DECNet Objects over token ring is established, that a group be chartered for that purpose. My next step will be to confirm consensus on our changes through a series of notes that I will send out over the next few days. I expect that this will be a formality since we have all discussed each of them in great detail in the past. After this process is complete I will post a revised draft according the schedule I posted earlier. I have started to receive implementation feedback and I have already been informed me that there is at least one implementation of the counters group. Our schedule requires that we post results from our survey of implementation and operational experience during June. I request that each person on the mailing list complete the form below mail it to me so that I may tabulate the results. If you wish your information to be held privately, I will not include your name in the report to the IESG (I think everybody would want their company name included). DECNet Phase IV MIB Implementation Survey Company Name: __________________________ Below is a list of the groups taken directly from the RFC. Please take a moment to put in either an x or product name(s) beside each so that we will be able to tell how many products implement each group. phivSystem ___________ ___________ ___________ ___________ phivManagement ___________ ___________ ___________ ___________ session ___________ ___________ ___________ ___________ end ___________ ___________ ___________ ___________ routing ___________ ___________ ___________ ___________ circuit ___________ ___________ ___________ ___________ ddcmp ___________ ___________ ___________ ___________ control ___________ ___________ ___________ ___________ ethernet ___________ ___________ ___________ ___________ counters ___________ ___________ ___________ ___________ adjacency ___________ ___________ ___________ ___________ line ___________ ___________ ___________ ___________ nonBroadcastLine ___________ ___________ ___________ ___________ area ___________ ___________ ___________ ___________ Additional Implementation/Operational Comments: Any other comments: Thanks very much /jon ------------------------------------------ Jon Saperia, Digital Equipment Corporation Internet: saperia@tay.dec.com Voice/FAX 508-952-3171/3023
- Implementation Survey Jon Saperia