[imss] Re: AD review of: draft-ietf-imss-fc-fspf-mib-01.txt

Keith,

your proposal makes sense to me.
Thanks,

                       Claudio.

Keith McCloghrie wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I didn't see any response to my message below.  So, I propose to
> pick one of the solutions below and ask for objections.  Specifically,
> I will remove the definition of t11FspfARegionNum from the 
> T11-FC-FSPF-MIB unless I hear objections.  I plan to submit the
> updated I-D at the beginning of next week when (I think) I-D submission
> re-opens.
>
> Thanks,
> Keith.
> --------------
> Forwarded message:
>   
>> From: Keith McCloghrie <kzm>
>> Message-Id: <200603071543.HAA21489@cisco.com>
>> Subject: Re: AD review of: draft-ietf-imss-fc-fspf-mib-01.txt
>> To: kzm@cisco.com (Keith McCloghrie)
>> Date: Tue, 7 Mar 2006 07:43:15 -0800 (PST)
>> Cc: bwijnen@lucent.com, Black_David@emc.com, cds@cisco.com, vgaonkar@cisco.com,
>>         kzm@cisco.com, silvano@ip6.com, dromasca@avaya.com, imss@ietf.org
>>
>>     
>>>> looks good. I would be OK with doing IETF Last Call and consider these
>>>> comments as initial IETF Last Call comments. At the other hand, IETF
>>>> LC right before/during an IETF will not get many people to pay
>>>> attention to this. Maybe you rather do a new rev first?
>>>>         
>>>  
>>> I'll do a new rev first, but it won't now get posted until after the IETF.
>>>       
>> In starting to do the edits, I have found one other thing which it
>> might be appropriate to change at this time.
>>
>> The present MIB, draft-ietf-imss-fc-fspf-mib-01.txt, defines the
>> object:
>>
>>   t11FspfARegionNum OBJECT-TYPE
>>       SYNTAX      T11FspfARegionNum
>>       MAX-ACCESS  read-write
>>       STATUS      current
>>       DESCRIPTION
>>              "The AR number of this switch in this Fabric."
>>       REFERENCE  "Fibre Channel - Switch Fabric - 4 (FC-SW-4), Rev 7.5,
>>                  May 2005, section D.3.1."
>>       DEFVAL     {0}
>>       ::= { t11FspfEntry 2 }
>>
>> I was starting to update the REFERENCE clauses to refer to the latest
>> rev of FC-SW-4, but in doing so I find that Annex/section D.3.1 is
>> missing.  In fact, the whole of what was Annex D has been removed from
>> the latest revision (rev 7.7 of December 2005).  I knew that T11 was
>> deprecating the concept of an "FSPF-Backbone" which was defined as:
>>
>>     The FSPF-Backbone Fabric consists of multiple Autonomous Regions
>>     (AR) that are interconnected by a backbone network.
>>
>> What I didn't realise was that it would disappear from the FC-SW-4
>> specification so soon.
>>
>> Without that Annex, the definition of t11FspfARegionNum no longer
>> makes any sense.
>>
>> So, the question is:
>>
>> - should the T11-FC-FSPF-MIB retain the definition of t11FspfARegionNum,
>>   and do so by referring to an out-of-date T11 specification, or,
>>
>> - should the definition of t11FspfARegionNum be removed from the
>>   T11-FC-FSPF-MIB at this time ??
>>
>> (Note that the edits that would be needed to remove it are obvious and
>> straight-forward, e.g., the T11FspfARegionNum TC which is only used by
>> t11FspfARegionNum would be deleted; t11FspfARegionNum would deleted
>> from both the MODULE-COMPLIANCE clause and from the t11FspfGeneralGroup
>> group.)
>>
>> Keith.
>>
>>     
>
>   

_______________________________________________
imss mailing list
imss@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/imss