[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: MIB Dr. review of draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-tc-mib-09.txt
On Mar 17, 2006, at 8:32 AM, Wijnen, Bert (Bert) wrote:
From: Thomas D. Nadeau [mailto:email@example.com]
Sent: Wednesday, March 15, 2006 17:17
Cc: firstname.lastname@example.org; Wijnen, Bert (Bert); Dan Romascanu (E-mail);
Adrian Farrel (E-mail); Bill Fenner (E-mail); Alex Zinin (E-mail)
Subject: Re: MIB Dr. review of draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-tc-mib-09.txt
On Mar 15, 2006, at 12:32 AM, <email@example.com> wrote:
Hi Tom and Adrian,
Due to the updates to the 2 other GMPLS MIB documents
wanted to re-review this document.
I did have one minor comment which was
the naming convention used, specifically
the use of the TC on the end of the names of these
Could this "TC" be removed? Sorry to not catch this
The "TC" was appended to remove the ambiguity
between the variable and TC names. This is actually a
warning from SmiLint too. Something like "Warning: object and
TC differ only in case".
Note that it is a warning. So it is not mandatory to change.
I agree with the warning in that it is better to not have exactly the
same names for TCs and for and object descriptors (variable names).
Not sure that adding TC at the end of the TC descriptor is the
best solution, but it is one way to do things.
Consistency is also a good thing as I have always been saying (I
The reason is that this is not consistent with
other Textual Conventions.
I tried to make all TCs end in "TC" for
the reason stated above. I will go back and 2x check
the others and make things consistent.
So do I take from this we should expect a new rev?
Yes. I spoke with Joan offline yesterday and am
working on incorporating all of her changes. I should have something
on Monday and will email to her directly to review my
fixes/changes. I will post an update as soon as the ID gate opens.