Re: MPLS objects in GMPLS MIB modules

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

On Wed, 28 Sep 2005 jcucchiara@mindspring.com wrote:
> * the GMPLS working group now has a few draft
>   MIBs which are being reviewed and I have found
>   a few objects (in at least 3 different tables)
>   which could (should?)  be in MPLS MIB module(s).   
>   In other words, if an implementation only 
>   supports MPLS, then these objects might 
>   be useful to that MPLS implementation, although 
>   they are defined in the GMPLS MIBs.  (These objects
>   do apply to GMPLS also.)
> 
> Personally, I am okay with leaving the objects in
> the GMPLS MIB modules because  
> implementations that support MPLS will probably
> also support GMPLS at some future point, and also
> because of the evolution of MPLS followed by GMPLS.   
> 
> I would appreciate some guidance on this:
> would this be acceptable to other MIB reviewers?

What you describe sounds like it would be OK.  I
would say that this decision is (or should be) the
province of the responsible WG(s) and all the MIB
Doctor needs to do is to make sure that the decision
is made with the eyes open.

One thing that you might consider suggesting to the
authors is to put the objects that are useful to MPLS
into a separate object group so that they could be
referenced by an appropriate MPLS compliance statement
(note that object groups have to be defined in the
same module as the objects they contain).

//cmh