RE: [imss] RE: AD review of: draft-ietf-imss-fc-rtm-mib-03.txt
"Romascanu, Dan \(Dan\)" <dromasca@avaya.com> Thu, 06 April 2006 15:30 UTC
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FRWR0-0007dh-OQ; Thu, 06 Apr 2006 11:30:10 -0400
Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FRFqF-00023k-7o for imss@ietf.org; Wed, 05 Apr 2006 17:47:07 -0400
Received: from co300216-ier2.net.avaya.com ([198.152.13.103]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FRFqE-00076X-OU for imss@ietf.org; Wed, 05 Apr 2006 17:47:07 -0400
Received: from tierw.net.avaya.com (h198-152-13-100.avaya.com [198.152.13.100]) by co300216-ier2.net.avaya.com (Switch-3.1.8/Switch-3.1.7) with ESMTP id k35LjZYM028381 for <imss@ietf.org>; Wed, 5 Apr 2006 17:45:35 -0400
Received: from IS0004AVEXU1.global.avaya.com (h135-64-105-51.avaya.com [135.64.105.51]) by tierw.net.avaya.com (Switch-3.1.8/Switch-3.1.0) with ESMTP id k35LUk37004199 for <imss@ietf.org>; Wed, 5 Apr 2006 17:30:47 -0400 (EDT)
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.0.6603.0
content-class: urn:content-classes:message
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Subject: RE: [imss] RE: AD review of: draft-ietf-imss-fc-rtm-mib-03.txt
Date: Thu, 06 Apr 2006 00:47:03 +0300
Message-ID: <AAB4B3D3CF0F454F98272CBE187FDE2F0A4DE7CF@is0004avexu1.global.avaya.com>
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
Thread-Topic: [imss] RE: AD review of: draft-ietf-imss-fc-rtm-mib-03.txt
Thread-Index: AcZY+cbkyjMzSB2sS2GMrI3cTVyRyAAAI7gA
From: "Romascanu, Dan (Dan)" <dromasca@avaya.com>
To: "Wijnen, Bert (Bert)" <bwijnen@lucent.com>, Keith McCloghrie <kzm@cisco.com>
X-Scanner: InterScan AntiVirus for Sendmail
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: d9238570526f12788af3d33c67f37625
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Thu, 06 Apr 2006 11:30:09 -0400
Cc: imss@ietf.org, sgai@cisco.com, skode@cisco.com, cds@cisco.com, Black_David@emc.com
X-BeenThere: imss@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: Internet and Management Support for Storage Working Group <imss.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/imss>, <mailto:imss-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:imss@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:imss-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/imss>, <mailto:imss-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: imss-bounces@ietf.org
Anybody can explain shortly the reason of the change RECOMMENDED -> recommended? Thanks, Dan > -----Original Message----- > From: Wijnen, Bert (Bert) [mailto:bwijnen@lucent.com] > Sent: Thursday, April 06, 2006 12:42 AM > To: Keith McCloghrie; Romascanu, Dan (Dan) > Cc: sgai@cisco.com; cds@cisco.com; imss@ietf.org; > skode@cisco.com; Black_David@emc.com > Subject: RE: [imss] RE: AD review of: > draft-ietf-imss-fc-rtm-mib-03.txt > > Keith/Dan, > I am basically happy with revision 3. > > I am surprised to see that RECOMMENDED was changed to > lowercase in the security considerations section. > If I were still AD I would require that to be changed back to > upper case as per the template at: > http://www.ops.ietf.org/mib-security.html > > That template text was agreed to by MIB doctors and Security > Area geeks a few years back, and it was not easy to agree on the text. > > Doc is ready for IETF LC, above comment can be addressed as > rfc-editor note or be considered IETF LC comments. > > Bert > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Wijnen, Bert (Bert) [mailto:bwijnen@lucent.com] > > Sent: Wednesday, March 08, 2006 21:17 > > To: Keith McCloghrie > > Cc: sgai@cisco.com; cds@cisco.com; imss@ietf.org; > dromasca@avaya.com; > > skode@cisco.com; Black_David@emc.com > > Subject: [imss] RE: AD review of: draft-ietf-imss-fc-rtm-mib-02.txt > > > > > > Inline > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: Keith McCloghrie [mailto:kzm@cisco.com] > > > Sent: Wednesday, March 08, 2006 16:21 > > > To: bwijnen@lucent.com > > > Cc: Black_David@emc.com; cds@cisco.com; skode@cisco.com; > > > kzm@cisco.com; sgai@cisco.com; imss@ietf.org; dromasca@avaya.com > > > Subject: Re: AD review of: draft-ietf-imss-fc-rtm-mib-02.txt > > > > > > > > > Bert, > > > > > > Thanks for the review. > > > > > Welcome > > > > > > This document is ready for IETF Last Call. > > > > > > > > One topic that I would prefer to see addressed: > > > > > > > > - When I see: > > > > t11FcRouteDestAddrId OBJECT-TYPE > > > > SYNTAX FcAddressIdOrZero > > > > MAX-ACCESS not-accessible > > > > STATUS current > > > > DESCRIPTION > > > > "The destination Fibre Channel Address Identifier of > > > > this route. A zero-length string for this field is > > > > not allowed." > > > > ::= { t11FcRouteEntry 1 } > > > > > > > > I then wonder why the syntax is not: > > > > > > > > SYNTAX FcAddressIdOrZero (SIZE(3)) > > > > > > > > So that the restriction that zero-length is not allowed is > > > > also machine readable. > > > > > > While I agree in principle, I think it also has one other effect: > > > it changes t11FcRouteDestAddrId from being a > variable-length string > > > into a fixed-length string, which only matters because > > > t11FcRouteDestAddrId is present in the INDEX clause, and thus, I > > > fear that some implementations might get the INDEX-ing wrong (re: > > > difference between bullets 2 and 3 at top of RFC 2578's page 28). > > > Thus, if you really want to see the restriction reflected in the > > > SYNTAX clause, I would prefer to do so as: > > > > > > SYNTAX OCTET STRING (SIZE (3)) > > > > > > so that it uses a regular construct, and implementors will > > immediately > > > know what to do. Do you agree ? > > > > > > > Thanks Keith, I had overlooked that aspect of variable length for > > indexing. > > Using OCTET STRING as you suggest does fix my initial comment, but > > then takes away that this is a FCAddressId. > > So I am not sure which choice I prefer. Does WG have any comments? > > Are there any implementers on the list who want to comment? > > > > So I have no firm opinion on which choice I like best anymore. > > > > > > > > Could be addressesd after IETF Last Call, even with an > > > RFC-Editor note. > > > > > > > > Mainly have some NITs below. > > > > You may consider them as initial IETF Last Call comments. > > > > Let me know if you rather do a new rev first or if you > prefer to > > > > do IETF LC now. I will probably let IETF LC extend > beyond the IETF > > > > week, because people are probably busy reviewing > documents for the > > > > IETF week itself. > > > > > > I'd prefer to fix them now, but I'll wait for your > response to this > > > message before doing so. > > > > > > > - t11FcRouteRowStatus has a pretty meager DESCRIPTION clause > > > > For example, from the DESCRIPTION clause of t11FcRouteIfDown > > > > it seems that maybe a 'destroy' to the RowStatus object > > > > may not take immediate effect? You might want to > describe that. > > > > It is also unclear if any writeable objects can be written > > > > when a row is active? > > > > > > The last sentence of RowStatus's DESCRIPTION in RFC 2579 > says that a > > > 'destroy' requires the row to be removed immediately. There was > > > discussion in T11.5 of the relationship between this > table and the > > > routing mechanisms that a FC switch uses, and we agreed > that such a > > > relationship is proprietary, and that the MIB needs to stay at > > > arms-length from being too specific about this > > relationship. Thus, I > > > would prefer not to add text talking about it. > > > > > > There is one thing I can add, which is implicit in > t11FcRouteTable's > > > DESCRIPTION, but it would probably be useful to add a > more explicit > > > statement in t11FcRouteRowStatus's DESCRIPTION: > > > > > > The only rows which can be deleted by setting this > > object to > > > 'destroy' are those for which t11FcRouteProto > has the value > > > 'netmgmt'. > > > > > > Then, it won't be so meagre :-). > > > > > > > Good. > > > > > > - The 4 OBJECT clauses that you did as comments in the > > > > MODULE-COMPLIANCE are normally put as comments inside the > > > > DESCRIPTION clause of the MODULE-COMPLIANCE clause itself. > > > > That way the text is better kept when MIB module gets > > > > extracted from RFC. Not a blocking comment though. > > > > > > OK, I'll move them. (The downside is that the > double-quotes have to > > > change, e.g., to single-quotes). > > > > > yep, but thanks for moving them. I think it makes IETF MIB > docs more > > consistent. And I just happen to like consistency in this space. > > > > > > > > - Section 7 seems redundant with the back matter, and might as > > > > well be removed. > > > > > > I'll let the RFC Editor do that. > > > > > > > Mmm... why is that? > > If you do a new rev anyway, why not just make it right > BEFORE it goes > > to RFC-Editor? > > > > > > - In the references section, are the details for [FC-SW-4] now > > > > known? If so, might want to fill them out. > > > > > > Yes, we filled them in recently on one of the other FC MIBs. > > > Thanks for reminding me of that. > > > > > > > Thanks, > > Bert > > > Keith. > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > imss mailing list > > imss@ietf.org > > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/imss > > > _______________________________________________ imss mailing list imss@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/imss
- RE: [imss] RE: AD review of: draft-ietf-imss-fc-r… Wijnen, Bert (Bert)
- RE: [imss] RE: AD review of: draft-ietf-imss-fc-r… Romascanu, Dan (Dan)
- RE: [imss] RE: AD review of: draft-ietf-imss-fc-r… Wijnen, Bert (Bert)
- RE: [imss] RE: AD review of: draft-ietf-imss-fc-r… Romascanu, Dan (Dan)