On Tue, 4 Feb 2003, Kristine Adamson wrote:
> In the November version of the new RFC2096 draft, the Revision History for
> 13 Jul 2002 states that the inetcidrRouteNextHopType MIB object was
> removed. But the definition of this MIB object still appears in the
> November version with a STATUS of "current". Is this MIB object still
> supported to be defined in the draft?
I think the dates on the revision history blocks are a little messed
up; they are certainly out-of-sequence. The Revision History for
27 Jun 2002 states that inetCidrRouteNextHopType was restored:
Changes from draft-ietf-ipngwg-rfc-2096-update-00.txt:
27 Jun 2002 Added inetCidrRouteDscp index and inetCidrRouteWeight
object to the inetCidrRouteTable.
Restored inetCidrRouteNextHopType variable (may be
different from inetCidrRouteDestType, due to global
vs. non-global distinction in new InetAddress TCs).
Removed inetCidrRouteInstance object. Use to identify
a conceptual routing table is obviated by new
InetAddress types and inclusion of DSCP index.
Changed editor, moved author information to end,
several editorial changes.
Changed name to draft-ietf-ipv6-rfc-2096-update-*.txt
13 Jul 2002 Removed inetCidrRouteNextHopType.
I also wondered of why inetCidrRouteNextHopType was needed when I
was reading the MIB module last week, but I think the reason given
in the 27 Jun 2002 revision block is correct, and that the object
really does need to be there.
//cmh
--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPng Working Group Mailing List
IPng Home Page: http://playground.sun.com/ipng
FTP archive: ftp://playground.sun.com/pub/ipng
Direct all administrative requests to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--------------------------------------------------------------------
