RE: coex draft last call

Hi Randy,

I need to better understand your comment. 

When you say "would note that", do you mean you feel a note should be put into the coex document?

dbh

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Randy Presuhn [mailto:[email protected]]
> Sent: Monday, January 13, 2003 1:28 AM
> To: [email protected] (E-mail)
> Subject: Re: coex draft last call 
> 
> 
> Hi -
> 
> > From: "Dave Shield" <[email protected]>
> > To: "[email protected] (E-mail)" <[email protected]>
> > Sent: Thursday, January 09, 2003 5:08 AM
> > Subject: Re: coex draft last call
> ...
> >    One final issue:
> > Is it worth saying something about AgentX in all this?  The AgentX
> > protocol operations are essentially SNMPv2 in a different guise,
> > so an AgentX master agent could be viewed as a sort of proxy.
> > Is it worthing saying something along these lines?
> >    Or is it really too late to consider this properly?
> ...
> 
> I concur with Dave Harrington's comment that this document should
> not refer to AgentX, but would note that the AgentX specification
> *does* refer to this document, since some of the rules here can
> be "reused" in figuring out how, for example, an AgentX environment
> could support SNMPv1.
> 
> Randy
> 
> 
>