RE: FW: DT's review of draft-ietf-tewg-mib-06.txt

[Kireeti Kompella <kireeti@juniper.net>]

> Thanks for the (spontaneous ;-)) follow up.

:-)

> W.R.t.
> > >  This MIB has no text on the relationship with the IPv4 Tunnel MIB,
> > >  and does not explain why it does not extend that MIB.
> > 
> > It would have helped to have this review *much* earlier.  There didn't
> > appear to be a need to explain why the TE MIB didn't extend the IPv4
> > tunnel MIB.  I can certainly add the outcome of this discussion in
> > some condensed form as an explanation, if deemed necessary.
> > 
> While I fully agree that earlier comment is always better, we do 
> explicitlyu do IETF wide Last Calls to give everyone (from all corners
> of the IETF) an opportunity to check and review. I am in fact pleased
> to see that IETF Last Call did result in some more review and comments
> (OK... I nudged a Dave...)

No problem -- I was just explaining why the text wasn't there.  I
will add appropriate text once we have converged.

> > It might make more sense to update the description of the Hop Address
> > Type to say more clearly why the different types are needed, than to
> > do it just in this MIB.
> > 
> So thyat is defined in the MPLS-TC MIB is it not?
> Pls get in touch with those people asap if that is indeed what
> we want. Sounds like a good idea.

I will follow up with the authors of the TC MIB.

Kireeti.