V.35 and other rs-232-like interfaces

Fred Baker <fred@cisco.com> Tue, 04 April 1995 01:16 UTC

Received: from ietf.nri.reston.va.us by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa04755; 3 Apr 95 21:16 EDT
Received: from CNRI.Reston.VA.US by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa04751; 3 Apr 95 21:16 EDT
Received: from venera.isi.edu by CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa19113; 3 Apr 95 21:16 EDT
Received: from stilton.cisco.com by venera.isi.edu (5.65c/5.61+local-21) id <AA26777>; Mon, 3 Apr 1995 18:02:04 -0700
Received: from [] (sl-chagrin-09.cisco.com []) by stilton.cisco.com (8.6.8+c/8.6.5) with SMTP id SAA26609 for <rreq@isi.edu>; Mon, 3 Apr 1995 18:01:56 -0700
X-Sender: fred@stilton.cisco.com
Message-Id: <v02110105aba64991ad40@[]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Mon, 3 Apr 1995 18:01:58 -0700
To: rreq@isi.edu
Sender: ietf-archive-request@IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US
From: Fred Baker <fred@cisco.com>
Subject: V.35 and other rs-232-like interfaces

Moon commented to me after the meeting that the document now says in
section 8.3:

        - If the router has RS-232 interfaces then the RS-232 [MGT:10] MIB
          MUST be implemented.

The RS-232 MIB makes it clear that it is not really RS-232, it is
RS-232-like - other V.24 interfaces such as V.35 and RS-422/423 (V.36/V.11)
also are covered in the RS-232 MIB document.

Should we change the statement to mandate implementation of the RS-232
interface for higher speed synchronous links?

I will place my argument before the court: I suggest not, as the modem
signals are not used on such interfaces in synchronous links anywhere near
as much as they are used in asynchronous RS-232 interfaces, and therefore
the MIB is less important. One could argue more strongly for a MAY or
SHOULD in those cases than for a MUST.

Having said which - what opinions are there? Should I add language for
other V.24 interfaces?

computers run on smoke, it if leaks out they won't run