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

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

Hi Tom,

Next in the series of your comments on the GMPLS MIBs.


> A minor comment; this document has
>  false (0),
> in several places; following RFC 2579, I think this should be
>  false (2)

OK

> A larger question,; this mib augments tables in the mpls mib (RFC3812);
is there
> a reason why the AUGMENTS construct was not used?

You and I discussed this on the list a bit. I think we came to the
conclusion that:
- Augments is what we intended
- it fits the usage
- the indexing is needed because the new table is a separate table.

So, no action, but I expect the MIB Doctors (TM) will pick up on it if
there are any issues.

Cheers,
Adrian