Re: X.25 MIB Comments

"Dean D. Throop" <> Wed, 01 July 1992 12:48 UTC

Received: from by IETF.NRI.Reston.VA.US id aa02492; 1 Jul 92 8:48 EDT
Received: from NRI.NRI.Reston.Va.US by IETF.NRI.Reston.VA.US id aa02488; 1 Jul 92 8:48 EDT
Received: from by NRI.Reston.VA.US id aa08197; 1 Jul 92 8:50 EDT
Received: from by (5.4.1/dg-rtp-proto) id AA12428; Wed, 1 Jul 1992 08:25:40 -0400
Received: by walrus (5.4.1/140.2) id AA05554; Wed, 1 Jul 1992 08:23:11 -0400
Date: Wed, 1 Jul 1992 08:23:11 -0400
From: "Dean D. Throop" <>
Message-Id: <9207011223.AA05554@walrus>
Subject: Re: X.25 MIB Comments
Cc: x25mib@dg-rtp

> From: Rodney L Thayer <>
> Subject: X.25 MIB Comments
> To:
> Message-Id: <>
> Unless my mailer corrupted it both part 1 and part 2 of what you just
> mailed were in fact part 1.  Anybody else have this problem?
Apparently my fingers were out of sync with reality when
splitting the file for mailing.  I remailed part 2.

> And, a real comment:
> Could we allow a 'none of the above' object for x25ProtocolVersion?  I've
> got several not-quite-standard X.25's I would like to use this on and I
> do not want to return misleading information.
The MIB defines the object identifiers for protocol versions that 
are standards coming from CCITT or ISO.  If an organization defines 
a variant of X.25 for their own use, they should also define an 
object identifier for that variant.  I feel you (or someone) should 
define an object identifier for each X.25 variant in the MIB of 
variant's sponsor and use it.  

Dean Throop