Re: V.35 and other rs-232-like interfaces

[Charles Carvalho <[e-mail]>]

At 5:01 PM 4/3/95, Fred Baker wrote:
>
>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?

Speaking from a customer perspective, I feel pretty strongly that the
RS-232 Interface MIB is very important for troubleshooting, if only to see
whether "carrier detect" is lit without sending someone over to check the
DSU (of course, if it's off, I still need to check the DSU to see whether
it's lit at that end of the cable, too; it's not good to call the phone
company when the cable falls off).  Since the input and output signal
tables in the MIB only require that you report the signals you support, it
seems to me that making this a MUST is not undue hardship, but I'd be
willing to settle for SHOULD.

Then again, in case any competitors are listening, "No, don't bother; you
don't really need it."

--
Charles Carvalho
<[e-mail]>