From: "Thomas D. Nadeau" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 20 Mar 2001 18:38:54 -0500

Hi,

         We are currently going through the edits
requested by the IESG for the proposed standard
version of the MPLS-LSR-MIB. The issue of whether
or not to add a new node under transmission called
mplsMIB was brought up. We think that this should be
done, but it was pointed out that the WG should
comment on this. Please let us know what you all
think.

         --Tom

>    although... this MIB possibly should go under transmission.
>    so then import "transmission" instead of "experimental"
>    and use:
>
>     ::= { transmission xxx } -- to be assigned by IANA,
>                              -- porbably best to use 166 (MPLS)
>
>   And then.. there might be other MPLS related MIBs that need to
>   be underneath this node, so maybe even define mplsMIB as
>   transmission xxx and then have various other MPLS (transmission)
>   related MIBs underneath mplsMIB...  Did the WG discuss and
>   consider this?