Subject: Clarification regarding RFC 1406 and RFC 2495

From: "Bert Wijnen" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 3 Jan 00 11:13:55 CET

Ref:  Your note of Mon, 3 Jan 2000 14:12:37 +0530 (IST)

Subject: Re:   Clarification regarding RFC 1406 and RFC 2495

Minti writes/asks:
>
> I am currently responsible for maintaining the E1 MIB as part of a
> module I am working on.
> With respect to this, I needed the current status of RFC 2495(dated Jan
> '99) - it has been listed as a proposed standard, while RFC 1406 is an
> Internet standard (dated Jan '93).
> Which RFC should I follow for my implementation?
>
Mmmm... what makes you think that RFC1406 was at a more advanced
standards level than RFC2495? The rfc-index.txt file states:

1406 Definitions of Managed Objects for the DS1 and E1 Interface
     Types. F. Baker, J. Watt, Editors. January 1993. (Format: TXT=97559
     bytes) (Obsoletes RFC1232) (Obsoleted by RFC2495) (Status: PROPOSED
     STANDARD)

2495 Definitions of Managed Objects for the DS1, E1, DS2 and E2
     Interface Types. D. Fowler, Ed. January 1999. (Format: TXT=155560
     bytes) (Obsoletes RFC1406) (Status: PROPOSED STANDARD)

So they both made it to Proposed Standard and not yet any further.
The second edition was recycled at proposed I assume because the
authors/editors and implementers found some problems and needed to
make some changes that prevented the MIB to advance to the next
level on the stadards track. You can actully see in section 1.1
what sort of changes were made and that caused the doc to recycle
at proposed.

You should implement RFC2495 if you want to claim compliance with the
current Proposed Standard in this area.

Hope this helps,
Bert