[imss] RE: imss WG Last Call: FC-SP MIB

["WIJNEN, Bert \(Bert\)" <[e-mail]>]

David,

Things are not going as I wanted. 
I was on vacation for a week, just returned this morning.

I have serious workload next week that I must give priority.
The week after I am at IEEE 802.1 meetings (with quite a bit
of MIB related work as well). So It seem it will be at least in
the last week of November that I can seriously get to it (I had
planned (in fact I started) to do so earlier). But it is
also possible that yet other high priority activities get in the 
way at that time. Can't elaborate now on that though.

I will not feel offended if you do not want to wait for that 
and instead look for another MIB Doctor for review.

Bert Wijnen  

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]] 
> Sent: Thursday, November 01, 2007 6:10 PM
> To: [e-mail]; WIJNEN, Bert (Bert)
> Cc: [e-mail]
> Subject: RE: imss WG Last Call: FC-SP MIB
> 
> The WG Last Call on this MIB has ended, but in addition to my 
> comments, I think it would be prudent to wait for Bert to 
> finish wading through this MIB before producing a revised 
> version and submitting it to the ADs/IESG.
> 
> Bert - do you have a timeframe for completing your review.
> 
> Thanks,
> --David (imss WG chair)
> ----------------------------------------------------
> David L. Black, Distinguished Engineer
> EMC Corporation, 176 South St., Hopkinton, MA  01748
> [phone]             FAX: [phone]
> [e-mail]        Mobile: [phone]
> ----------------------------------------------------
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Black, David
> > Sent: Tuesday, October 09, 2007 8:18 PM
> > To: '[e-mail]'
> > Cc: Black, David; 'Romascanu, Dan (Dan)'
> > Subject: imss WG Last Call: FC-SP MIB
> > Importance: High
> > 
> > This is to announce an imss WG Last Call on the following MIB draft:
> > 
> >             MIB for Fibre-Channel Security Protocols (FC-SP)
> >                    draft-ietf-imss-fc-fcsp-mib-00.txt
> > 
> > This WG Last Call will run through 12 midnight Eastern Time 
> on Friday, 
> > October 26, 2007 (your WG chair hopes to deal with Last 
> Call results 
> > during the week of October 29th and hopes that any revisions can be 
> > completed prior to the November 19th Internet Draft 
> submission cutoff 
> > for the Vancouver meeting).
> > 
> > Technical comments *must* be sent to the imss mailing list.
> > Editorial comments may be sent directly to the draft editor (but 
> > please cc: me):
> > 
> > 		Keith McCloghrie [[e-mail]]
> > 
> > In order to try to set a good example, I have completed my WG chair 
> > review of the MIB prior to announcing this Last Call.
> > 
> > I found two technical concerns:
> > (1) The MIB defines precedence values for traffic selectors
> > 	as opposed to implicitly presenting them in order of
> > 	precedence.  I guess this is ok, but Section 4.7 should
> > 	explain why this approach was chosen.
> > (2) Section 4.9 defines rate control for Authentication
> > 	failures on a per-fabric granularity.  That strikes
> > 	me as overly coarse, and I wonder if per-SA would
> > 	be a more appropriate/useful granularity.
> > 
> > I also found a number of editorial concerns:
> > 
> > Section 1, 2nd paragraph.  Remove the sentence starting with "This 
> > latest draft" or insert an instruction to the RFC Editor to 
> remove it 
> > before publication as an RFC.
> > 
> > Section 3.1 - Delete "The" at the start of the first paragraph.
> > 
> > Should Section 3.5 and subsequent subsections of Section 3 all be 
> > subsections of Section 3.4 Security?
> > 
> > Section 3.10 - "To provide better scaling, the Switch Connectivity
> >    Objects are not Fabric-wide information such that they are
> >    distributed only to where they are needed."
> > 
> > "information such that they are" -> information, but are"
> > 
> > Section 3.10 introduces "Active Zone Set" but does not explain what 
> > this term means.
> > 
> > T11FcSpPolicyNameType - the DESCRIPTION needs to explain 
> the concept 
> > of "restricted" - how does a "restricted" entity differ from the 
> > corresponding unrestricted entity?
> > 
> > Thanks,
> > --David
> > ----------------------------------------------------
> > David L. Black, Senior Technologist
> > EMC Corporation, 176 South St., Hopkinton, MA  01748
> > [phone]             FAX: [phone]
> > [e-mail]        Mobile: [phone]
> > ----------------------------------------------------
> > 
> > 
> 


_______________________________________________
imss mailing list
[e-mail]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/imss