RE: any implementations?

"Clark, Alan" <> Thu, 24 April 1997 15:23 UTC

Received: from cnri by id aa26964; 24 Apr 97 11:23 EDT
Received: from [] by CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa13059; 24 Apr 97 11:23 EDT
Received: from Chelmsford.Telebit.COM ( by (4.1/SMI-4.1/Telebit.COM-Sendmail-V4.3) id AA07184 to; Thu, 24 Apr 97 11:09:08 EDT
Received: from by Chelmsford.Telebit.COM (4.1/SMI-4.1-pmm-2) id AA00864; Thu, 24 Apr 97 11:09:07 EDT
Received: from by (4.1/SMI-4.1/Telebit.COM-Sendmail-V4.3) id AA07181 to modemmgt@Telebit.COM; Thu, 24 Apr 97 11:09:03 EDT
Received: by with SMTP (Microsoft Exchange Server Internet Mail Connector Version 4.0.994.63) id <>; Thu, 24 Apr 1997 11:08:16 -0400
Message-Id: <>
From: "Clark, Alan" <>
To: "'modemmgt@Telebit.COM'" <>, 'Jim Barnes' <>
Cc: "''" <>
Subject: RE: any implementations?
Date: Thu, 24 Apr 1997 11:08:16 -0400
X-Mailer: Microsoft Exchange Server Internet Mail Connector Version 4.0.994.63
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

	The IETF modem management MIB was not widely supported by the
	community of modem manufacturers.  A second modem MIB was
	developed within the ANSI TIA TR30 committee, I believe this was 
	approved and released in 1995 with the status of a US standard.
	TR30 is attended by almost all of the US modem manfacturers and
	hence is generally a better place to develop modem standards.
	The TIA MIB was developed to map closely onto the ITU V.58 modem
	management standard, as was the new V.25ter extended AT command
	set.  This means that the same basic semantics may be used for
	control of a modem regardless of whether SNMP, CMIP or AT commands
	are used.  There are several obvious advantages stemming from this:-

	(i) The behaviour of the modem is not required to be different for SNMP
	vs other protocols

	(ii) It is easy to translate SNMP or CMIP commands to AT+ format to
	interface to modems that don't have embedded agents

	I also have a draft DMTF MIF based on the same V.58 standard and
	could complete and distribute this if there is any interest.

	Alan Clark (preferred)

>From: 	Jim Barnes[]
>Sent: 	Wednesday, April 23, 1997 2:44 PM
>To: 	modemmgt@Telebit.COM
>Subject: 	any implementations?
>Has anyone implemented RFC 1696 or know of any fielded implementations,
>either agent or management application?
>  Jim Barnes (