Re: last call comment on draft-ietf-tewg-mib-01.txt

[Kireeti Kompella <kireeti@juniper.net>]

Hi,

> Below is a comment I posted on 17 Oct 2001 to the WG list. I never got
> a response. So I am trying again - this time as a WG last call comment.

: I agree with Brian that you should be using the InetAddress TC
: definitions. It is unclear to me who an AS number can identify a "hop
: address" - so its kind of hard to tell what the right solution is.

Perhaps you should take a look at the RSVP TE/CR-LDP drafts to
understand how AS numbers are used.  You should also look at the
unnumbered drafts to understand that not all interfaces have IP
addresses.

: (Perhaps some text should be added to the document which better
: explains the tunnel endpoint concept you are using.)

These are *not* tunnel endpoints -- these are the hops that the
tunnel goes through.

: There are some more SMIv2 issues. For example, the teTunnelName should
: be not-accessible. It does not make sense to make it
: accessible-for-notify so that it can be included in notifications
: since the value of the teTunnelName will be automatically part of the
: instance identifier of the tePathName parameter.

I'm not sure I follow -- but if it works to make the teTunnelName
not-accessible, I'm all for it.

: I also suggest to not
: use IMPLIED.

Interesting.  If I understood Keith's comments, he suggested using
IMPLIED.  I'll double check Keith's email.

: Also, some objects should probably use Unsigned32 instead
: of Integer32 (assuming that e.g. negative bandwidth does not make
: sense).

Thanks, good point.

Kireeti.