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 93 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