The MPLS WG Archive

[jcucchiara@mindspring.com]

Hi Tom and Subrahmanya,

I have a few comments on this draft, please consider these
for last call comments.

Overall, I think adding more information with these 2 tables is
good, as it provides some extra information and will allow easier
look ups in other tables.


A couple of questions/clarifications:
-------------------------------------
1.  Adrian asked about the relationship with some objects in
    the LDP MIB, and I would also like some clarification
    as to the relationship.

    My initial reading led me to think that these LC interfaces
    were for static LSPs, are they also for LDP LSPs?

    In Section 3 "Terminology" the definition of the LC-ATM
    discusses LDP peers, so wanted clarification.  

    Is it necessary to support the MPLS-LDP-STD-MIB's Entity table
    in addition to the MPLS-LSR-STD-MIB's  mplsInterfaceTable?

2.  I was confused as to why these tables are said to 
    "extend" the mplsInterfaceTable.  The relationship
    looks like it could be an AUGMENTS.  Please clarify.

     If this does turn out to be an AUGMENTS relationship then
     there is no need for the RowStatus and StorageType objects.

    
Comments in the order they appear in the draft:
-----------------------------------------------

Most of these are minor comments but just included them
for completeness.  Also, most of the comments which discuss something
specific about the LC-ATM 
MIB Module, also apply to the LC-FRAME-RELAY MIB Module, so I just
put a little comment where I did see that it would apply to the FRAME-RELAY
table also.

1) table of contents numbering is wrong.

2) need to update the use of MPLS-LSR-MIB/MPLS-LSR to MPLS-LSR-STD-MIB
   and MPLS-TE-MIB/MPLS-TE to MPLS-TE-STD-MIB

3) Section 5. Interface Stacking of LC-ATM.  

   The last sentence of this section needs to be updated, 
   to replace references of mplsInterfaceConfTable with 
   mplsInterfaceTable.  Also the section numbers are incorrect,
   section 7 should be 6, section 8 should be 7.

4) The name of the MIB Module should be:

   MPLS-LC-ATM-STD-MIB

   (In general this should be carried through the MIB Module so,
    mplsLcAtmMIB should be mplsLcAtmStdMIB, etc.)  This is to be
    consistent with the other MPLS MIB Modules.

    Similar comment for LC-FR MIB Module.

5) CONTACT-INFO

   Needs to be updated for both co-authors.
    Similar comment for LC-FR MIB Module.

6) DESCRIPTION 

   The mplsStdMIB sub-ids of 6 and 7 are already being 
   used (mplsLdpFrameRelayStdMIB and mplsLdpGenericStdMIB), 
   so please use numbers above 7.

    Similar comment for LC-FR MIB Module.


7)  To be consistent with the latest MPLS-LSR-STD-MIB, should
    mplsLcAtmIfConfTable, be renamed to mplsLcAtmInterfaceTable?

    Similar comment for LC-FR MIB Module.


8)  INDEX -- need clarification as to why AUGMENTS is not being
    used.  If AUGMENTS was used, then there would be no need
    for the mplsLcAtmIfConfRowStatus object and the 
    mplsLcAtmIfConfStoreType object.

    Similar comment for LC-FR MIB Module.


9) mplsLcAtmVcMerge DESCRIPTION

   gives a value of true(0), but this should be:

TruthValue ::= TEXTUAL-CONVENTION
    STATUS       current
    DESCRIPTION
            "Represents a boolean value."
    SYNTAX       INTEGER { true(1), false(2) }


10) Compliance Statement.

    My preference would be to see 2 compliances.  One for full compliance
    and one read-only.  I think that there is only a read-only one.

    Also, clarification about whether or not the mplsLdpEntityAtmTable
    needs to be supported and the relationship to the mplsLdpAtmLRTable
    which is Adrian's question could be clarified here also.

    Similar comment for LC-FR MIB Module.


11) Security Considerations

   Would be preferable to have separate sections for the
   LC-ATM MIB and the LC-FR MIB Modules.  This would be more
   consistent with the other MPLS MIBs.

12) Reference for TC MIB needs to be updated, it is now at draft 10.

13) Some of the References in the text do not agree with the
    Reference, for example, have seen [MPLSTCMIB] in the text
    but reference says [TCMIB]

14) Section 10.  Subrahmanya's contact info does give city, state info.

15) Section 11.  Copyright says 2001, should be 2004.

16) Section 13.  IANA Considerations,  already mentioned above, 
     but please use numbers above 7.

Thanks,
   -Joan