The MPLS WG Archive

["Wijnen, Bert (Bert)" <bwijnen@lucent.com>]

I have the below comments. If you can fix them, that would be good.
But I can also live if an IETF Last Call is done and these are
then considered as part of the IETF Last Call Comments.

Pls note that I have also asked Dave Thaler to re-check if he is now
happy with this rev. Have not heard frioom him yet.


1. Section 4, page 3 says:
     The TE Link MIB module (TE-LINK-MIB) is designed to satisfy the
     following requirements and constraints:
   But the MIB module name is actually TE-LINK-STD-MIB

2. TeLinkBandwidth floating point in value in Unsigned32 ?
   With a DISPLAY-HINT of "d" ? That means it gets displayed as 
   an unsigned 32-bit integer. Not sure we have a good way of doing
   this. I am checking with other MIB doctors

   The draft-ietf-ccamp-ospf-gmpls-extensions-12.txt documents speaks
   about 4-octet IEEE Floating point format as opposed to 32-bit.
   Would it be better to use similar terminology?

3. TeLinkSonetSdhIndication 
   I wondered why you have 0 and 1 as values. For an INTEGER based
   enumeration we prefer not to start at zero unless there are good
   reasons. So, you reference GMPLS-OSPF doc, where I see the link.
   Might want to make that explicit as the reason why you use 0 and 1.

4. The references for [LMP] and [GMPLS-ARCH] do not have the correct
   authors/editors. I bet RFC-Editor will fix.

Thanks,
Bert