Re: X.25 MIB Comments

Rodney L Thayer <> Wed, 01 July 1992 19:04 UTC

Received: from by IETF.NRI.Reston.VA.US id aa06809; 1 Jul 92 15:04 EDT
Received: from NRI.NRI.Reston.Va.US by IETF.NRI.Reston.VA.US id aa06805; 1 Jul 92 15:04 EDT
Received: from by NRI.Reston.VA.US id aa23976; 1 Jul 92 15:06 EDT
Received: from relay2.UU.NET by (5.4.1/dg-rtp-proto) id AA13623; Wed, 1 Jul 1992 14:45:00 -0400
Received: from by relay2.UU.NET with SMTP (5.61/UUNET-internet-primary) id AA11856; Wed, 1 Jul 92 14:45:03 -0400
Received: by (5.61+++/Spike-2.0) id AA18195; Wed, 1 Jul 92 14:44:40 -0400
Date: Wed, 1 Jul 1992 14:44:37 -0400 (EDT)
From: Rodney L Thayer <>
Sender: Rodney L Thayer <>
Reply-To: Rodney L Thayer <>
Subject: Re: X.25 MIB Comments
To: "Dean D. Throop" <>
In-Reply-To: <9207011223.AA05554@walrus>
Message-Id: <>

Regarding definition of another object for an x.25 that does not fit any
of the defined protocol versions in the mib:

Your response (that is, that I should define my own object if I have a
case that does not fit) seems perfectly reasonable.   However, I don't
understand how I was supposed to infer that answer from the MIB document.

How was I supposed to figure that out myself?