Subject: draft-ietf-mpls-lsr-mib-03.txt published

From: "Thomas D. Nadeau" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 21 Apr 2000 14:41:12 -0400

Hi,

	We have published version -03 of the MPLS LSR
MIB. The modifications which appear in this version
were made as a result of the MPLS WG Last Call period
which took place a few weeks ago.

	In the time before this draft appears on the
MPLS web site, it can be found anonymously at:

ftp://[email-masked]/tnadeau/draft-ietf-mpls-lsr-mib-03.txt

	--Tom

---

From: "Mancour, Tim" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 24 Apr 2000 09:56:10 -0400

Tom,

Everything looks good, I have just a few typographical comments:

      1) The syntax for mplsXCIndex is Integer32(0..2147483647), it
         should be Integer32(1..2147483647).

      2) In the descriptions of both mplsInterfaceTotalBandwidth and
         mplsInterfaceAvailableBandwidth, it says "kilobits per second
         (Kbps/sec)". It should be "kilobits per second (Kbps)".

      3) In the descriptions of both mplsTrafficParamMaxRate and
         mplsTrafficParamMeanRate it says "rate in bits/second". It
         should be "rate in kilobits/second".
  
      4) The syntax for mplsInSegmentNPop is Integer32(1..2147483647).
         Zero should be a valid value. Also, it was previously agreed 
         that INTEGER(0..255) was a better syntax for this object.

      5) For consistency, mplsMaxLabelStackDepth should also have a 
         syntax of INTEGER(1..255).

Thanks.
TimM   

-----Original Message-----
From: Thomas D. Nadeau [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Friday, April 21, 2000 2:41 PM
To: [email-masked]
Cc: cheenu Srinivasan; arun Viswanathan
Subject: draft-ietf-mpls-lsr-mib-03.txt published

	Hi,

	--Tom

---

From: "Thomas D. Nadeau" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 24 Apr 2000 12:54:59 -0400

Hi Tim,

>          should be Integer32(1..2147483647).

         You are right. We will fix this in a rev. that we
will publish on Wednesday. We will wait until then in case
we get other comments from folks. We encourage all interested
parties to please read over the current draft and submit
any errors you might find ASAP. 8)

>          should be "rate in kilobits/second".

         We will fix these in the next revision. Dang typos.

>          that INTEGER(0..255) was a better syntax for this object.

         The top most label must always be popped, so the default
value of this is set to 1, and the range correctly begins at
1. A value of 0 does not make sense.

>          syntax of INTEGER(1..255).

         The motivation was that the framework document did not
preclude the use of label stacks greater than 255, although we
couldn't determine why anyone would ever want to do this.

         --Tom