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

Marshall Rose <mrose@dbc.mtview.ca.us> Wed, 04 January 1995 16:16 UTC

Received: from ietf.nri.reston.va.us by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa03931; 4 Jan 95 11:16 EST
Received: from [132.151.1.1] by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa03927; 4 Jan 95 11:16 EST
Received: from venera.isi.edu by CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa01109; 4 Jan 95 11:16 EST
Received: from dbc.mtview.ca.us (ppp.dbc.mtview.ca.us) by venera.isi.edu (5.65c/5.61+local-20) id <AA01029>; Wed, 4 Jan 1995 07:42:49 -0800
Received: from dbc.mtview.ca.us by dbc.mtview.ca.us (5.65/3.1.090690) id AA07069; Wed, 4 Jan 95 07:42:13 -0800
Reply-To: rreq@isi.edu
To: rreq@isi.edu
Subject: Re: ftp://ftp.cisco.com/fred/rreq-03.txt
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Id: <7059.789234119.1@dbc.mtview.ca.us>
Date: Wed, 04 Jan 1995 07:42:00 -0800
Message-Id: <7062.789234120@dbc.mtview.ca.us>
Sender: ietf-archive-request@IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US
From: Marshall Rose <mrose@dbc.mtview.ca.us>

Forgive me for entering this conversation late.

Why don't we just remove every reference to SNMPv2 in RREQ?

When SNMPv2 proves itself, I'm sure that it will be time to issue an
update to RREQ.  At that time, we can have this discussion...

/mtr