Subject: Re: Consensus for draft-kompella-mpls-te-mib-00.txt

From: Kireeti Kompella <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 6 Sep 2000 16:10:04 -0700 (PDT)

Hi Jim,

> I believe the best thing to do is to accept kireeti's draft as a te-wg 
> item, as it has both running code and rough (very) consensus behind 
> it.

I'm happy to hear that.  My personal opinion: the two drafts address
different (but valid) aspects of TE tunnels; having two drafts is the
right thing to do, especially in view of the different tasks that each
is better suited to (configuration/debugging vs. operation/maintenance).

I will re-issue the draft as a TE WG draft.

Kireeti.

---

From: "Thomas D. Nadeau" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 06 Sep 2000 19:32:51 -0400

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

---

From: "Sudhanshu Jain" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 6 Sep 2000 18:47:12 -0700

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

---

From: Randy Bush <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 07 Sep 2000 07:01:00 +0200

> I will re-issue the draft as a TE WG draft.

thank you.  this became non-productive a while ago.

fyi, keith has comments just waiting to drop on you. :-)

randy

---

From: Mart Nurmet <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 08 Sep 2000 12:42:23 -0500

I would prefer the MIBs merged.  Competing ones even if slight are couterproductive.

-Mart