Re: ftp://ftp.cisco.com/fred/rreq-03.txt

[[e-mail]]

> 
> > I think that the transition issue is just so much smoke and mirrors.
> 
> word.  I thought the real transition issue was of allowing manager x to
> 
>    1) bilingual routers during manager transition
>    2) bilingual managers during router transition
>    3) bilingual everything for some long period of time, then reconsider
>    4) maybe some managers can't see some routers during transition
> 
> I thought #4 was deemed a bad thing but if people think it's OK, then
> you're completely right.
> 
> > I suspect that the new RREQ RFC will achive "standard" status after
> > the SNMPv2 RFC does, right?
> 
> Hadn't thought about that.  I can't figure out whether RFC 1602 mandates
> 6 month and 4 month delays for advancement of RREQ (in the event that it
> only references full standards, that is).  Good point.
> 

With the NM-AD giving some "hints", I expect that the prudent thing to
do is to drop references to SNMPv2 in the current RREQ doc and let it stand
as is.  A snapshot of requirements for IPv4 routers in 1994.

Future generations can work transition issues.

-- 
--bill