Re: [Gen-art] A *new* batch of IETF LC reviews - 2015-05-07

(sorry - please ignore. I resent with fixed subject and distribution.)

On 5/10/15 2:06 PM, Paul Kyzivat wrote:
> I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. For background on
> Gen-ART, please see the FAQ at
>
> <http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/GenArtfaq>.
>
> Please resolve these comments along with any other Last Call comments
> you may receive.
>
> Document: draft-ietf-opsawg-vmm-mib-02
> Reviewer: Paul Kyzivat
> Review Date:
> IETF LC End Date: 2015-05-18
> IESG Telechat date: (if known)
>
> Summary: Ready with minor issues.
>
> Major issues:
>
> None.
>
> Minor issues:
>
> * Figure 2: A few things are fuzzy about this figure:
>
> -- The meaning/purpose of the part above the "====", and its
> relationship to the rest of the diagram, isn't clear to me. Is it a
> legend, explaining the notation for transient vs. finite states?
>
> -- what is the point of the 'preparing' state? There is no way in, and
> the only way out is to shutdown. (I could understand it as a starting
> state if there was a path to running.) While it is described later, in
> this figure it seems to have no purpose.
>
> -- the 'blocked' and 'crashed' states have no way either in or out.
> Surely there must be some path into these states, and some path out (at
> least to shutdown or deleted.)
>
> I see from the later definitions that arbitrary state transitions can be
> represented. Is Figure 2 intended to normatively constrain the state
> transitions? Or does it only provide an overview of "expected" transitions?
>
> I don't feel I understand the intent sufficiently to suggest changes to
> remedy my confusion.
>
> * Section 5
>
> This says "Hypervisors *shall* implement HOST-RESOURCES-MIB." This
> sounds normative. If so, 'shall' should be replaced with MUST.
>
> The same issue with 'shall' is present in the 2nd paragraph refering to
> virtual machines.
>
> Also in the 2nd paragraph I can't parse or fully understand the last
> sentence. ("This document defines the objects of these information.")
> Changing 'these' to 'this' would make it grammatical, but still not very
> clear. I guess you mean something like: "This document defines the
> relationship between the objects visible to virtual machine operators
> and those visible to hypervisor operators."
>
> * Section 8 - Security Considerations:
>
> I see no 2119 language in this section, but I see language that sounds
> normative to me. E.g., "When SNMPv3 strong security is not used, these
> objects ***should*** have access of read-only, not read-write." If these
> statements are intended to be normative then please use 2119 language.
>
> The rest leaves me concerned about security. But I will leave it to a
> security review to dig into.
>
> Nits/editorial comments:
>
> * The introduction says that this has been derived from "enterprise
> specific" MIB modules. But the examples sound more "product-specific"
> than enterprise-specific. I guess you mean modules created by the
> enterprise producing the product, so maybe it is ok, but it struck me as
> odd. (Please feel free to leave this as-is if the usage is appropriate
> in context.)
>
> * Page 22, DESCRIPTION of vmHvSoftware:
>
> This says "This value should not include its version, and it should be
> included in `vmHvVersion'." IIUC 'and' is the wrong word to use here -
> 'as' would convey the intended meaning.
>
> _______________________________________________
> Gen-art mailing list
> Gen-art@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
>