Re: AUGMENTS clause

["Randy Presuhn" <randy_presuhn@mindspring.com>]

Hi -

> From: "C. M. Heard" <heard@pobox.com>
> To: "Mreview (E-mail)" <mreview@ops.ietf.org>
> Sent: Monday, January 10, 2005 6:49 PM
> Subject: Re: AUGMENTS clause
...

> The ATM-MIB (formerly RFC 1695, currently RFC 2515) was designed to
> manage permanent virtual connections (PVCs).  Switched virtual
> connections could be represented, but "full management of SVCs may
> require additional capabilities which are beyond the scope of this
> memo".  RFC 3606 contains the extensions that allow SVCs to be fully
> managed.  The atmSigDescrParamTable contains signalled parameters
> that are relevant for SVCs but not for PVCs.
>
> A manager designed to work entirely within the scope of RFC 2515
> (i.e., no proprietary extensions) would be able to set up PVCs by
> creating the appropriate objects.  It could continue to do so as it
> always had done if it encountered an agent that supported RFC 3606,
> because the additional objects -- i.e., atmVclGenSigDescrIndex and
> the row instance it points to -- are not needed and are not
> instantiated for a PVC.
>
> So, I don't think that there is anything troublesome about this
> augmentation.

On the contrary, your explanation makes it clear that AUGMENTS
was the wrong construct, since the relationship is not 1:1, but rather
1:(0..1), depending on whether it's an SVC or PVC.

Randy