Re: Last WG call for FDDI MIB draft

Anil Rijsinghani <> Tue, 17 September 1996 01:26 UTC

Received: from cnri by id aa25695; 16 Sep 96 21:26 EDT
Received: from CS.UTK.EDU by CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa01654; 16 Sep 96 21:26 EDT
Received: from localhost (root@localhost) by CS.UTK.EDU with SMTP (cf v2.9s-UTK) id QAA29820; Mon, 16 Sep 1996 16:43:12 -0400
Received: from ( []) by CS.UTK.EDU with ESMTP (cf v2.9s-UTK) id QAA29812; Mon, 16 Sep 1996 16:43:03 -0400
Received: from by (8.7.5/UNX 1.2/1.0/WV) id QAA31255; Mon, 16 Sep 1996 16:28:31 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from netcad.enet by (5.65/rmc-22feb94) id AA10878; Mon, 16 Sep 96 16:26:56 -0400
Message-Id: <>
Received: from netcad.enet; by us1rmc.enet; Mon, 16 Sep 96 16:27:22 EDT
Date: Mon, 16 Sep 96 16:27:22 EDT
From: Anil Rijsinghani <>
Subject: Re: Last WG call for FDDI MIB draft

With the last WG call for comments on the FDDI MIB completed, I am
sending the FDDI MIB (SNMPv1 as well as SNMPv2 versions) on behalf
of this WG to IESG/NM for consideration as Draft Standard, as
well as a request to move RFC 1285 to historical status.

My thanks to all those who responded with their implementation
experience on RFC 1512.  The final draft of the FDDI MIB, which will be
available shortly, incorporates a couple of editorial comments from
Jeff Case (one to correct grammar in the abstract and another to
clarify further one of the "changes from RFC 1512" in section 5 -- see

Thanks and regards to all,


jeff> in the last sentence, "this" is confusing ... i think you mean for it to
jeff> refer to the ansi document but when i first read it, i thought you meant
jeff> "this" to be the fddi mib document itself
jeff> would this be better?
jeff>                                                         ... Note that the
jeff> technical content of that standard is identical to that of the ANSI SMT
jeff> version 7.3 draft standard.

That sounds better.. I'll update the drafts accordingly.

jeff> 2. should it also be documented in section 5, the changes from rfc1512 that
jeff> an = sign was removed in the description of fddimibPATHTMaxLowerBound?

In section 5, in the description of the change to fddimibPATHTMaxLowerBound,
I had noted that the nsec number as well as the equation had been updated.
I'll add the fact that an = sign was added.