Re: RFC 1289 and Phase IV-Prime questions and nasty "-"

Art Berggreen <> Wed, 02 December 1992 18:04 UTC

Received: from by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa12701; 2 Dec 92 13:04 EST
Received: from CNRI.RESTON.VA.US by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa12697; 2 Dec 92 13:04 EST
Received: from by CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa17913; 2 Dec 92 13:05 EST
Received: by; id AA16658; Wed, 2 Dec 92 10:05:02 -0800
Received: by; id AA19880; Wed, 2 Dec 92 09:35:04 -0800
Received: by; id AA19876; Wed, 2 Dec 92 09:35:03 -0800
Received: by; id AA20896; Wed, 2 Dec 92 09:35:02 -0800
Received: by (4.1/SMI-4.0) id AA29253; Wed, 2 Dec 92 09:36:57 PST
Date: Wed, 2 Dec 92 09:36:57 PST
Sender: ietf-archive-request@IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US
From: Art Berggreen <>
Message-Id: <>
Subject: Re: RFC 1289 and Phase IV-Prime questions and nasty "-"

>I have been asked if 1289 is going to be modified to include Phase IV-Prime
>functions before it is spun to Draft Standard status.

"Phase IV-Prime", "Phase IV-Plus", What is the official DEC nomenclature
(if there is one)?

>My current view is that the MIB was created to instrument a specific set of
>functions and that I would like not to add any more objects or groups to this
>mib for Phase IV-Prime.  The only thing that would convince me that we should
>add the new functions is if there were a public demand for these new
>features on this list.
>So.. unless people speak up to the contrary stating that they have Phase 
>IV-Prime implementations and they really want to add the instrumentation with
>new MIB elements, I would be reluctant to add them to this MIB.  In fact, a
>new working group would probably have to be formed anyway to do the work.

Unless DEC can be persuaded to publish the Phase IV-Prime extensions
(something I'd really like done), I don't think it's a good idea to
base part of a MIB on undocumented protocol extensions (even if they
have generally been figured out).