[Gen-art] Gen-ART review of draft-ietf-ips-scsi-mib-08
Harald Tveit Alvestrand <harald@alvestrand.no> Tue, 17 January 2006 15:03 UTC
Received: from localhost.cnri.reston.va.us ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1EysMn-0007FN-0r; Tue, 17 Jan 2006 10:03:25 -0500
Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1EysMk-0007EM-2Y; Tue, 17 Jan 2006 10:03:22 -0500
Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA21889; Tue, 17 Jan 2006 10:01:56 -0500 (EST)
Received: from eikenes.alvestrand.no ([158.38.152.233]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1EysUs-0003cr-3M; Tue, 17 Jan 2006 10:11:47 -0500
Received: from localhost (eikenes.alvestrand.no [127.0.0.1]) by eikenes.alvestrand.no (Postfix) with ESMTP id D02522596CD; Tue, 17 Jan 2006 16:02:06 +0100 (CET)
Received: from eikenes.alvestrand.no ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (eikenes.alvestrand.no [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 23729-08; Tue, 17 Jan 2006 16:02:01 +0100 (CET)
Received: from halvestr-w2k02.emea.cisco.com (eikenes.alvestrand.no [127.0.0.1]) by eikenes.alvestrand.no (Postfix) with ESMTP id 35BBE2596C7; Tue, 17 Jan 2006 16:01:59 +0100 (CET)
Date: Tue, 17 Jan 2006 16:02:41 +0100
From: Harald Tveit Alvestrand <harald@alvestrand.no>
To: gen-art@ietf.org
Message-ID: <869996B830DFB7EE29B738B5@B50854F0A9192E8EC6CDA126>
X-Mailer: Mulberry/4.0.3 (Win32)
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at alvestrand.no
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: 25620135586de10c627e3628c432b04a
Cc: mbakke@cisco.com, marjorie_krueger@hp.com, mankin@psg.com, yaronled@bezeqint.net, ips@ietf.org, michele@sanrad.com, kzm@cisco.com
Subject: [Gen-art] Gen-ART review of draft-ietf-ips-scsi-mib-08
X-BeenThere: gen-art@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: "GEN-ART: General Area Review Team" <gen-art.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art>, <mailto:gen-art-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www1.ietf.org/pipermail/gen-art>
List-Post: <mailto:gen-art@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gen-art-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art>, <mailto:gen-art-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============0541512300=="
Sender: gen-art-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: gen-art-bounces@ietf.org
This is a Gen-ART review. For Gen-ART info, see this URL:<http://www.alvestrand.no/ietf/gen/art/gen-art-FAQ.html> Document: draft-ietf-ips-scsi-mib-08.txt Reviewer: Harald Alvestrand Date: Jan 17, 2006 Summary: Excellent document, two important comments. I enjoyed reading this document! - the intro to SCSI and its history was fun to read! ---------------------------------------------------------- Two important questions, that may warrant a respin of the document if I'm right that there's a problem here: [SAM-2] and [SPC2] are normative references (defines format for ScsiLUN and other things), but are listed as Working Drafts in the REFERENCE clauses of multiple MIB objects. (In the references section, the draftness seems implied by the URL only) Is this stable enough for an IETF standard reference? Or are the references in the MIB wrong? The term "running at high speed" is a gating criterion for whether or not the HS counters are mandatory, but I can't see that it's defined in a testable way. Might have missed it - it would logically seem to belong in section 7.5. ------------------------------------------------------------- Questions, that I'd like to have answered in email, but don't warrant a respin in my opinion: The scsiDscTgtTable and scsiAuthorizedIntr table seem to form "access lists". They seem to be read-write via SNMP. Should this be explicitly mentioned in the intro in section 5? The security considerations for these objects are very good, and make it very clear that they're writable! SAS (Serial Attached SCSI) is not mentioned at all. Is it irrelevant, or "just another transport"? Or is this what's called "scsiTransportSBP"? ------------------------------------------------------------- Nits, which IMHO you can fix or not as you feel like: Some byzantine sentences... 7.3 "another logical unit changes its status to from available" is missing something 7.4 "at 10GBit/second with 512 read/write operations" seems to be missing a byte :-) RFC 2119 is listed as an informative reference. I think it needs to be normative.
_______________________________________________ Gen-art mailing list Gen-art@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
- [Gen-art] Gen-ART review of draft-ietf-ips-scsi-m… Harald Tveit Alvestrand
- [Gen-art] RE: Gen-ART review of draft-ietf-ips-sc… Black_David
- [Gen-art] RE: Gen-ART review of draft-ietf-ips-sc… Harald Tveit Alvestrand
- RE: [Gen-art] RE: Gen-ART review of draft-ietf-ip… Black_David