Doing it the right way Tue, 25 August 1992 21:59 UTC

Received: from by IETF.NRI.Reston.VA.US id aa07264; 25 Aug 92 17:59 EDT
Received: from NRI.NRI.Reston.Va.US by IETF.NRI.Reston.VA.US id aa07260; 25 Aug 92 17:59 EDT
Received: from by NRI.Reston.VA.US id aa19535; 25 Aug 92 18:01 EDT
Received: by; id AA26727; Tue, 25 Aug 92 15:01:05 -0700
Received: by; id AA18096; Tue, 25 Aug 92 14:36:08 -0700
Received: by; id AA18091; Tue, 25 Aug 92 14:36:05 -0700
Received: by; id AA25592; Tue, 25 Aug 92 14:36:04 -0700
Received: by (5.57/ULTRIX-fma-071891); id AA04339; Tue, 25 Aug 92 17:38:49 -0400
Message-Id: <>
Subject: Doing it the right way
Date: Tue, 25 Aug 92 17:38:48 -0400
X-Mts: smtp

I just got a not from chuck davin which said they had a similar discussion
recently about another mib.  He writes:

>We just had a bit of a discussion on this topic wrt to Ether MIB. I
>think the right answer is to define new objects that are the modified
>versions of the old and to include the old objects in the revised MIB
>with status of "obsolete" (not "deprectated").
------- Forwarded Message

Received: by (5.57/ULTRIX-fma-071891);
	id AA04321; Tue, 25 Aug 92 17:33:37 -0400
Received: by; id AA25299; Tue, 25 Aug 92 14:30:48 -0700
Received: from by (5.65/1.8)id AA10651; Tue, 25 Aug 92 17:30:33 -0400
Received: by (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)
Message-Id: <>
To: saperia
Cc:, phil@Shiva.COM,
In-Reply-To:'s message of Tue, 25 Aug 92 16:41:13 -0400 <>
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

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

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

------- End of Forwarded Message