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

["Adrian Farrel" <adrian@olddog.co.uk>]

Thanks for the references.
This fits with what I thought.

Viz. Augments means that an entry in the augmenting table is created
whenever an entry in the base table is created.
Extends means that an entry in the extending table is created only when
required.

The indexing in the two cases is the same.

Cheers,
Adrian


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Tom Petch" <nwnetworks@dial.pipex.com>
To: "Adrian Farrel" <adrian@olddog.co.uk>; <ccamp@ops.ietf.org>
Sent: Wednesday, March 16, 2005 9:09 PM
Subject: Re: comments on draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-te-mib-08.txt


> 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
> >
>
>
>