The MPLS WG Archive

["Sudhanshu Jain" <sjain@maplenetworks.com>]

Hi Thomas,

I agree with your approach and here are my views to this effort.

I would like to see single MIB addressing all related issue as it help to
clear the confusion.

IMHO, LSP info ( in this draft) is not specific to tunnel only and so there
is no point them merging it with TE-MIB. Instead, it should be get augmented
to mplsXCEntry in LSR MIB.

Any comments?

Also, why do we have named draft-ietf-mpls-te-mib.txt as "TE-MIB"? IMHO, it
should be Tunnel-MIB :)) Is traffic engineering is limited to tunnels only?

Thanks,
-Sudhanshu

----- Original Message -----
From: "Thomas D. Nadeau" <tnadeau@cisco.com>
To: <mpls@UU.NET>; <te-wg@UU.NET>
Sent: Wednesday, September 06, 2000 4:32 PM
Subject: Re: Consensus for draft-kompella-mpls-te-mib-00.txt


>
> I was going to send this out just before I saw
> Jim's last message and replied, so please excuse the
> misorder.
>
> Jim and I have been having some offline discussions about the
> two MIBs in question (Kireeti's and the MPLS-TE-MIB), and perceive
> several options:
>
> - pick one (which?) and let it move onto the standards track
> - move both separately onto the standards track
> - merge them and move the merged one onto the standards track
>
> Arun, Cheenu and I understood that the third option was being requested,
> and hence merged the MIBs and sent out the email of Wed, 30 Aug 2000
> 16:06:19 -0400
> concerning that activity. However, I'm not sure that I have actually heard
the
> working group's viewpoint or consensus on this, and would like a straw
> poll. Could
> you please reply to the list with your opinion on the above, even if only
> to say "I don't have a strong opinion"?
>
> Thank you,
>
> --Tom
>
>