fddi mib status

CASE@utkvx.utcc.utk.edu Sat, 16 January 1993 01:22 UTC

Received: from ietf.nri.reston.va.us by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa22801; 15 Jan 93 20:22 EST
Received: from CNRI.RESTON.VA.US by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa22796; 15 Jan 93 20:22 EST
Received: from CS.UTK.EDU by CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa28468; 15 Jan 93 20:23 EST
Received: from localhost by CS.UTK.EDU with SMTP (5.61++/2.8s-UTK) id AA29320; Fri, 15 Jan 93 20:01:11 -0500
X-Resent-To: fddi-mib@CS.UTK.EDU ; Fri, 15 Jan 1993 20:01:11 EST
Errors-To: owner-fddi-mib@CS.UTK.EDU
Received: from UTKVX2.UTK.EDU by CS.UTK.EDU with SMTP (5.61++/2.8s-UTK) id AA29312; Fri, 15 Jan 93 20:01:10 -0500
Received: from utkvx.utk.edu by utkvx.utk.edu (PMDF #3151 ) id <01GTK5TCZXLC8X0BO5@utkvx.utk.edu>; Fri, 15 Jan 1993 20:00:39 EST
Date: 15 Jan 1993 20:00:39 -0500 (EST)
Sender: ietf-archive-request@IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US
From: CASE@utkvx.utcc.utk.edu
Subject: fddi mib status
To: rem@dsiinc.com
Cc: fddi-mib@cs.utk.edu
Message-Id: <01GTK5TCZXLE8X0BO5@utkvx.utk.edu>
X-Vms-To: IN%"rem@dsiinc.com"
X-Vms-Cc: IN%"fddi-mib@cs.utk.edu",CASE
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT

ron mackey writes:

>The changes we made to the fddi mib at the last meeting weren't
>that extensive, but I'd like to see exactly how they were incorporated
>into the new mib because I think we may have created some new problems
>with the decisions we made at the last meeting.


>Should I wait until the new mib is posted, or go ahead and post
>the problems that I expect to appear in the "new" version?

feel free to post them now

>When can we expect to see the new version?  Didn't you promise
>us a new version by the end of last year?

i've made 3 promises in the past 15 years, all to my wife, and kept 'em all
i did say i'd try, and i did -- have worked on it this week
will try to have it done by this time next week
anybody who thinks they have text that reflects what was decided in november
can help by sending it to me

>I'd like to see the new version so I can finish implementing it.
>It would be nice to know BEFORE the next meeting if there are still
>things that are unimplementable or incorrectly specified.

yes, and people don't really want to wait until the next meeting --
that would make it too late for interop

i'd still like to think that we can reach consensus on this document before
the next meeting, so we can work on other things (like traps) at the next

i know i'm critical path, but not too proud to ask any of you with text to 
send it as a help