Re: Wed, 04 January 1995 16:15 UTC

Received: from by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa03895; 4 Jan 95 11:15 EST
Received: from [] by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa03891; 4 Jan 95 11:15 EST
Received: from by CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa01108; 4 Jan 95 11:15 EST
Received: from by (5.65c/5.61+local-20) id <AA01062>; Wed, 4 Jan 1995 07:44:43 -0800
Received: from ( []) by (8.6.4/8.6.4) with SMTP id KAA06090; Wed, 4 Jan 1995 10:43:15 -0500
Sender: ietf-archive-request@IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US
Received: from by (4.1/SMI-4.1) id AA16222; Wed, 4 Jan 95 10:43:13 EST
Received: by (4.1/SMI-4.1) id AA02143; Wed, 4 Jan 95 10:43:10 EST
Message-Id: <>
To: "Craig A. Finseth" <>
Subject: Re:
In-Reply-To: Your message of "Wed, 04 Jan 95 08:40:55 CST." <>
Date: Wed, 04 Jan 95 10:43:09 -0500

I agree with the "it's too soon" contingent.  Reworking your thoughts
into that straitjacket I come up with this proposal:  MUST SNMPv1.
MAY (or SHOULD?) SNMPv2.  DISCUSSION: Transition from SNMPv1 to SNMPv2
is a goal for a future Internet standard.  However, this is unlikely to
occur until SNMPv2 is a full standard and more operational experience
has been gained.  Also, such a transition cannot be carried out
simultaneously throughout the operational Internet, so coexistence
of both versions for some period of time is a practical necessity.

I think that whenever people agree it's time for the SNMPv2 mandate
to happen, a separate RFC should be issued updating Router Reqs and
possibly other affected RFCs - Host Reqs, or whatever.

/Bill Barns