Re: comments on draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-te-mib-08.txt

["Tom Petch" <nwnetworks@dial.pipex.com>]

To quote from RFC2578
" Instances of subordinate columnar
   objects of a conceptual row augmentation are identified according to
   the INDEX clause of the base conceptual row corresponding to the
   object named in the AUGMENTS clause.  Further, instances of
   subordinate columnar objects of a conceptual row augmentation exist
   according to the same semantics as instances of subordinate columnar
   objects of the base conceptual row being augmented.  As such, note
   that creation of a base conceptual row implies the correspondent
   creation of any conceptual row augmentations"

exactly; or

- AUGMENTS is an alternative to INDEX in SMIv2
- there is a one to one correspondence between rows in the base table and rows
in the AUGMENTS table(s - can be more than one), same index columns, same index
values
- the column objects in the AUGMENTS table(s) are created when the row in the
base table is created; assuming that the agent implements those columns in the
AUGMENTS table(s) - that is a matter of conformance clauses etc.

Reading the text, I thought these conditions were met - but I was not sure;
seeing the INDEX clauses makes me think I am not understanding the text, I am
missing something:-)

Tom Petch

----- Original Message -----
From: "Adrian Farrel" <adrian@olddog.co.uk>
To: "Tom Petch" <nwnetworks@dial.pipex.com>; <ccamp@ops.ietf.org>
Sent: Wednesday, March 16, 2005 5:34 PM
Subject: Re: comments on draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-te-mib-08.txt


> Hi Tom,
>
> > A minor comment; this document has
> >  false (0),
> > in several places; following RFC 2579, I think this should be
> >  false (2)
>
> Good catch. This is in the example which is why we didn't catch it by
> compiling.
>
> > A larger question,; this mib augments tables in the mpls mib (RFC3812);
> is there
> > a reason why the AUGMENTS construct was not used?
>
> This is not my area of expertise!
> I think that there are two strict augmentations and in these cases
> AUGMENTS was used.
>
> The other cases are, I believe, extensions.
>
> I *think* the difference is that an AUGMENT is always present and an
> extension is only present if used.
> (Feels like I'm on shaky ground!)
>
> Cheers,
> Adrian
>