V.35 and other rs-232-like interfaces

[Fred Baker <[e-mail]>]

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