RE: FW: DT's review of draft-ietf-tewg-mib-06.txt

["Wijnen, Bert (Bert)" <bwijnen@lucent.com>]

Thanks for the (spontaneous ;-)) follow up.

W.r.t.
> >  This MIB has no text on the relationship with the IPv4 Tunnel MIB,
> >  and does not explain why it does not extend that MIB.
> 
> It would have helped to have this review *much* earlier.  There didn't
> appear to be a need to explain why the TE MIB didn't extend the IPv4
> tunnel MIB.  I can certainly add the outcome of this discussion in
> some condensed form as an explanation, if deemed necessary.
> 
While I fully agree that earlier comment is always better, we do 
explicitlyu do IETF wide Last Calls to give everyone (from all corners
of the IETF) an opportunity to check and review. I am in fact pleased
to see that IETF Last Call did result in some more review and comments
(OK... I nudged a Dave...)


... snip ..

> It might make more sense to update the description of the Hop Address
> Type to say more clearly why the different types are needed, than to
> do it just in this MIB.
> 
So thyat is defined in the MPLS-TC MIB is it not?
Pls get in touch with those people asap if that is indeed what
we want. Sounds like a good idea.

Bert