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

[[e-mail]]

Bert,

If there's a reasonable possibility that you'll be able to
complete this review by the end of the year, I'd prefer to
wait for that review rather than go looking for another
MIB doctor (which could take even longer).  Is that a
reasonable possibility?

Thanks,
--David
----------------------------------------------------
David L. Black, Distinguished Engineer
EMC Corporation, 176 South St., Hopkinton, MA  01748
[phone]             FAX: [phone]
[e-mail]        Mobile: [phone]
----------------------------------------------------

> -----Original Message-----
> From: WIJNEN, Bert (Bert) [mailto:[e-mail]] 
> Sent: Friday, November 02, 2007 11:07 AM
> To: Black, David; [e-mail]
> Subject: RE: imss WG Last Call: FC-SP MIB
> 
> 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