Re: AUGMENTS clause

["C. M. Heard" <heard@pobox.com>]

On Mon, 10 Jan 2005, Randy Presuhn wrote:
> 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.

One can add optional columns in a base table (optional, in the sense
that they are not required to be instantiated under all
circumstances).  Are you now telling me that it's unlawful to use
the AUGMENTS clause to do the same thing?  That's exactly what RFC
3606 is doing.  The same thing, BTW, was done in the IF-MIB.

//cmh