|
Orly,
Even
complete valid intervals may not always exactly 15 minutes/day (depending on the
table), there might be situations of 1-2 second slip depending on the
implementation. This is the reason for keeping time elapsed also at the interval
table.
David From: Orly Nicklass [mailto:orly_n at rad.com] Sent: Monday, February 20, 2006 5:51 PM To: David Zelig; Thomas D. Nadeau Cc: pwe3 at ietf.org Subject: RE: [PWE3] Re: PW-TC-MIB and PW-MIB From: David Zelig [mailto:Davidz at corrigent.com] Sent: Sunday, February 19, 2006 13:15 To: Orly Nicklass; Thomas D. Nadeau Cc: pwe3 at ietf.org Subject: RE: [PWE3] Re: PW-TC-MIB and PW-MIB Orly,
Updated (this month) versions of TC and the core MIB are already
published.
Have
no problem to move the PwVlanCfg to the
pw-enet-mib.
Regarding
the statistics, would like to get more opinions, I still believe that we need
time elapsed both for interval (where it means the actual interval length) and
current
[Orly Nicklass] Incomplete interval might
imply discontinuity, invalid data etc., in such
case what is the point of saving the duration of
such?
I suggest to close it in the
next meeting to allow all PW MIBs to align with one
definitio/approach.
David
Snipped to
end...
|
_______________________________________________ pwe3 mailing list pwe3 at ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pwe3