--- Dave Shield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Mon, 2005-04-25 at 22:16, gg gg wrote: > > Was wondering why you would implement > 2233(proposed > > standard) instead of 2863(draft standard and > obsoletes > > 2233)? > > But is there actually any significant difference > between > the two? A brief scan through the "Changes since > 2233" > section of RFC 2863 seems to indicate that these > changes > are mostly clarifications of earlier ambiguities. > > The IF-MIB that we ship is certainly the RFC 2863 > version. > > Dave >
I'll admit I hadn't really looked through the differences other than the category. Mostly clarifications, but some items have been deprecated and linkup/linkdown are considered mandatory. This would change how I would implement the MIB(no deprecated items, must support linkup/linkdown). Robert > > > ------------------------------------------------------- > SF.Net email is sponsored by: Tell us your software > development plans! > Take this survey and enter to win a one-year sub to > SourceForge.net > Plus IDC's 2005 look-ahead and a copy of this survey > Click here to start! > http://www.idcswdc.com/cgi-bin/survey?id=105hix > _______________________________________________ > Net-snmp-coders mailing list > Net-snmp-coders@lists.sourceforge.net > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/net-snmp-coders > ------------------------------------------------------- SF.Net email is sponsored by: Tell us your software development plans! Take this survey and enter to win a one-year sub to SourceForge.net Plus IDC's 2005 look-ahead and a copy of this survey Click here to start! http://www.idcswdc.com/cgi-bin/survey?id=105hix _______________________________________________ Net-snmp-coders mailing list Net-snmp-coders@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/net-snmp-coders
