Re: FYI: What new MIB would look like

Jim Barnes <> Sat, 19 February 1994 01:40 UTC

Received: from by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa17295; 18 Feb 94 20:40 EST
Received: from CNRI.RESTON.VA.US by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa17291; 18 Feb 94 20:40 EST
Received: from by CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa25120; 18 Feb 94 20:40 EST
Received: from america.Sunnyvale.Telebit.CO ( by (4.1/SMI-4.1/Telebit-Apache-Brent-940210) id AA02020 to; Fri, 18 Feb 94 17:35:40 PST
Received: from by america.Sunnyvale.Telebit.COM (4.0/ id AA29523 to modemmgt@apache.Sunnyvale.Telebit.COM; Fri, 18 Feb 94 17:35:38 PST
Received: from by (4.1/SMI-4.1/Telebit-Apache-Brent-940210) id AA02017 to modemmgt@Telebit.COM; Fri, 18 Feb 94 17:35:34 PST
Received: from by with SMTP id AA07384 (5.65c/UK-2.1-940201); Fri, 18 Feb 1994 20:41:39 -0500
Received: by id AA02831 (4.1/UK-2.1-921215); Fri, 18 Feb 94 20:41:47 EST
Message-Id: <>
Sender: ietf-archive-request@IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US
From: Jim Barnes <>
Date: Fri, 18 Feb 1994 20:41:45 EST
X-Mailer: Mail User's Shell (7.1.0 4/25/90)
Subject: Re: FYI: What new MIB would look like

After reviewing the latest version of the document, I find a lot
that is useful in the MIB.  I would like to see this published
as an RFC so that people will start to implement and use it.  Based
on that implementation experience we can review/revise the MIB
before it goes to Draft status.

I have sent Steve a few minor corrections, but other than that, I
support moving this version of the MIB forward for review by the 
NM Directorate.

I will be off the net for the next week (a little vacation) and will 
catch up with the group when I get back.

  Jim Barnes (