Re: MIB Dr. Review for draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-te-mib-14.txt

[<jcucchiara@mindspring.com>]

Hi Tom,



----- Original Message -----
From: Thomas D. Nadeau <tnadeau@cisco.com>
To: <jcucchiara@mindspring.com>
Cc: Adrian Farrel <adrian@olddog.co.uk>; <ccamp@ops.ietf.org>;
<bwijnen@lucent.com>; <dromasca@avaya.com>; <kireeti@juniper.net>
Sent: Tuesday, April 25, 2006 1:40 PM
Subject: Re: MIB Dr. Review for draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-te-mib-14.txt

<snip>


> > 9) I am still unclear about what objects can be supported within
> > MPLS only.  Was expecting to see this clarified in the conformance
> > statements.  There does seem to be more of a division here than
> > in the GMPLS-LSR-STD-MIB.
> >
> > Could some clarification be made to this point?
>
> I guess I am confused. I am not sure why we have
> to explain the reverse relationship. All of the objects herein
> are for GMPLS only; none apply to MPLS-only TE entries.
> So the objects that are supported by
> MPLS-only TE entries should have no corresponding
> objects in this MIB module.  Tabular entries in this
> MIB represent GMPLS entries only, and they also have
> corresponding objects in say RFC3812. We also covered this
> reciprocal relationship in the conformance statement before
> as part of your previous comments RE: "should we
> explain each object or explain that they ALL apply."
>

I was also confused.  If there are no MPLS objects then
the MIB is fine as is.

Thanks,
  Joan