Re: FddiTime
dan@lannet.com Tue, 28 July 1992 12:15 UTC
Received: from ietf.nri.reston.va.us by IETF.NRI.Reston.VA.US id aa00832; 28 Jul 92 8:15 EDT
Received: from NRI.NRI.Reston.Va.US by IETF.NRI.Reston.VA.US id aa00828; 28 Jul 92 8:15 EDT
Received: from CS.UTK.EDU by NRI.Reston.VA.US id aa06238; 28 Jul 92 8:15 EDT
Received: by CS.UTK.EDU (5.61++/2.8s-UTK) id AA22147; Tue, 28 Jul 92 07:23:27 -0400
Received: from [192.84.3.7] by CS.UTK.EDU with SMTP (5.61++/2.8s-UTK) id AA22143; Tue, 28 Jul 92 07:23:12 -0400
Received: from moon.lannet.com ([149.49.50.12]) by lannet.com (4.1/3.1.090690-Lannet Data Communications) id AA04456; Tue, 28 Jul 92 14:10:27 IDT
Received: by moon.lannet.com (4.1/SMI-4.1) id AA00646; Tue, 28 Jul 92 14:10:59 IDT
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 1992 14:10:59 -0000
Message-Id: <9207281110.AA00646@moon.lannet.com>
From: dan@lannet.com
To: fddi-mib@cs.utk.edu
Subject: Re: FddiTime
Cc: anil@levers.enet.dec.com, atuncay <atuncay@synoptics.comfddi-mib>
Anil writes: > Anyway, the vote is 3-1 against making this change so far and there > are bigger and better issues yet to be resolved on this mib, so > let's move on! :-) What vote? A proposal was put to change the presently used units of FddiTime to more human (Network Manager)-friendly ones. I saw not even one repply against it on the list. The accepted rule as I understand it is that silence means acceptance. If some kind of 'voting' or consulting takes place it should be made public. Anyway, just in case I did not understand the rules, I strongly support changing the units and transporting on wire data which is meaningful to the manager. It would help both sofisticated applications and simple 'browsing machines'. So, it's 3-2 now! Let's move on to the 'bigger and better issues', but think again and hear more voices about the FddiTime issue. dan@lannet.com
- Re: FddiTime dan
- Re: FddiTime Camelot..Camelot..it's only a model