[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: comments on draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-te-mib-08.txt
Next in the series of your comments on the GMPLS MIBs.
> A minor comment; this document has
> false (0),
> in several places; following RFC 2579, I think this should be
> false (2)
> A larger question,; this mib augments tables in the mpls mib (RFC3812);
> a reason why the AUGMENTS construct was not used?
You and I discussed this on the list a bit. I think we came to the
- Augments is what we intended
- it fits the usage
- the indexing is needed because the new table is a separate table.
So, no action, but I expect the MIB Doctors (TM) will pick up on it if
there are any issues.