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.