Re: [imss] re-review: T11-FC-ZONE-SERVER-MIB in

[Keith McCloghrie <[e-mail]>]

> I did a rereview of the revision 1 MIB module.

Thanks.

> At the end of this email, I have attached my earlier comment on
> revision 00.
> 
> Thanks for the revision, and also thanks for the explanatory answers
> from Keith. I see no showstoppers anymore.
> 
> remaining NIT(s):
> 
> - might want to add IETF IMSS WG in ORGANIZATION clause.
 
OK.

> - for object t11ZsActivateResult
>            The value 'none' indicates activation/de-activation
>            has not been attempted since since the last restart
>            of the management system."
>   s/since since/since/
 
OK.

> - When I read
>    t11ZsActiveAttribValue  OBJECT-TYPE
>     SYNTAX       OCTET STRING (SIZE (0..252))
>     MAX-ACCESS   read-only
>     STATUS       current
>     DESCRIPTION
>            "The value of the attribute, formatted according to
>            its type as indicated by the corresponding instance
>            of t11ZsActiveAttribType.
> 
>            As specified in FC-GS-5, the length of an attribute
>            value is at least 4 bytes, and if necessary, the value
>            is appended with zero bytes so that the length is a
>            multiple of four.  For a Vendor Specific attribute
>            value, the first 8 bytes contains the T10 Vendor ID
>            as described in FC-GS-5."
> 
>    Then it seems to me that the SYNTAX should show at least a size of 4.
>    So I would make it
>     SYNTAX       OCTET STRING (SIZE (4..252))
> 
>    Or do I not correctly understand the DESCRIPTION clause? In which
>    case it might be good to clarify it.
 
The length is: a) at least 4 bytes and b) a multiple of four.  So, if
the SYNTAX needs to exclude lengths of 0, 1, 2, and 3, then for
consistency, it also needs to exclude lengths of 4n+i where 0 < i < 4.
However, that would require a SIZE clause of more than 300 characters
(with normal spacing) or 200 characters (omitting all space characters),
i.e., either five lines in an RFC, or an unreadable three lines in an
RFC.  So that it is both readable and consistent, I suggest that it's
better to leave it as-is.

> - What is the persistency behaviour for entries in
> t11ZsNotifyControlTable?
>   From the DESCRIPTION clause of t11ZsServerDatabaseStorageType I think
>   it is controlled by that object. Would be good to list that in the
>   DESCRIPTON clause of t11ZsNotifyControlEntry, as you have done for the
>   other tables.
 
OK.

Keith.

> Bert
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Wijnen, Bert (Bert) 
> > Sent: donderdag 7 september 2006 23:17
> > To: [e-mail]; [e-mail]
> > Cc: [e-mail]
> > Subject: WG last call review: T11-FC-ZONE-SERVER-MIB in 
> > draft-ietf-imss-fc-zs-mib-00.txt
> > 
> > T11-FC-ZONE-SERVER-MIB
> > 
> > --------- questions/comments
> > 
> > - Would it be better to rename T11ZoningName to T11ZsZoningName?
> >   This for naming consistency and avoiding possible future name
> >   clashes.
> > 
> > - For t11ZsServerDistribute
> >           Setting this object will fail if the corresponding
> >           instance of t11ZsServerOperationMode has the value
> >           'enhanced', or if the corresponding instance of
> >           t11ZsZoneSetResult has the value 'inProgress'."
> >   
> >   will fail with what? I assume/think 'inconsistentValue'.
> >   Might be good to state so, to ensure proper implementation.
> > 
> > - Now that I see t11ZsServerReasonCode, I wonder if the 2nd
> >   para in the DESCRIPTION clause would also make sense for
> >   the t11FLockRejectReasonCode object
> > 
> > - do the SIZE for t11ZsServerReasonCodeExp
> >   and t11ZsServerReasonVendorCode possibly also make sense for
> >   t11FLockRejectReasonCodeExp, t11FLockRejectReasonVendorCode
> >   that is allowing for a SIZE of zero?
> >  
> > - I wonder why this
> > 
> >     t11ZsServerDefaultZoneSetting OBJECT-TYPE
> >         SYNTAX       INTEGER {
> >                         permit(1),
> >                         deny(2)
> >                      }
> > 
> >   Is not done with a TruthValue possibly using a different
> >   descriptor.
> >   Not a fatal flaw though, but a missed opportunity for
> >   re-use in my view. Unless if one expects more values in
> >   the future.
> > 
> >   For t11ZsServerMergeControlSetting it is less obvious, but the
> >   same question could be asked I guess.
> > 
> > - I see:
> >     t11ZsSetName OBJECT-TYPE
> >         SYNTAX       T11ZoningName
> >         MAX-ACCESS   read-create
> >         STATUS       current
> >         DESCRIPTION
> >            "The name of this Zone Set. The t11ZsSetName should
> >            be unique within a fabric.
> > 
> >            The Zone Set can be renamed by setting this object
> >            to a new value."
> > 
> >   and wonder if the rename can also be done while the row is in
> >   'active' state !!??
> > 
> > - I am not sure I understand this:
> > 
> >     t11ZsSetEntry  OBJECT-TYPE
> >         SYNTAX       T11ZsSetEntry
> >         MAX-ACCESS   not-accessible
> >         STATUS       current
> >         DESCRIPTION
> >            "Each entry contains information about a Zone Set
> >            in the Zone Set database of a particular fabric
> >            (identified by the value of t11ZsServerFabricIndex)
> >            on a particular switch (identified by values of
> >            fcmInstanceIndex and fcmSwitchIndex).
> > 
> >            A Zone Set is created containing zero or more
> >            existing Zones.  As and when new Zones are created
> >            (as rows in the t11ZsZoneTable), they can be added
> >            to a Zone Set by creating an entry for each in the
> >            t11ZsSetZoneTable.
> > 
> >            The StorageType of a row in this table is specified by
> >            the instance of t11ZsServerDatabaseStorageType which is
> >            INDEX-ed by the same values of fcmInstanceIndex,
> >            fcmSwitchIndex and t11ZsServerFabricIndex."
> >         INDEX   { fcmInstanceIndex, fcmSwitchIndex,
> >                   t11ZsServerFabricIndex, t11ZsSetIndex }
> >         ::= { t11ZsSetTable 1 }
> > 
> >   So it seems to me I can do SNMP SET to create an entry in this
> >   table. But is is not clear if, when I do so, and entry in the
> >   t11ZsServerTable must already exist or not. Probably so,
> >   because it uses the actual (index) objects from that table.
> >   But in practice, can an SNMP utility not just create entries
> >   with index values that do not really exists in the base
> >   table? I'd like to know how the agent is supposed to react.
> > 
> >   So if the base table entrues must exist first,
> >   then it would be good to say so, i.e. spell it out.
> >   And to say what happens if it does not yet exist.
> >   If not, then I wonder how/when the entry in that t11ZsServerTable
> >   does get created, because otherwise it is unclear how/if/when
> >   the persistency works.
> >   
> >   And what when I delete the row? Does it have any effect on the
> >   associated rows in t11ZsServerTable. Possibly not. But I am
> >   not sure how I can determine that based on the current
> >   DESCRIPTION clauses.
> > 
> > - I have the same/similar question for t11ZsZoneEntry
> > 
> > - Can t11ZsZoneAttribBlock be changed while row is active?
> > 
> >   such questions can be asked for more read-write/read-create
> >   objects in this MIB module. I won't keep repeating.
> > 
> > - For t11ZsSetZoneEntry, it seems that the 3 other tables MUST
> >   have an existing associated entry(entries) before creating
> >   an entry in this row makes sense. But maybe it is OK to
> >   prepare this table before the other tables have been
> >   completed/created?
> > 
> > - for t11ZsSetZoneRowStatus I wonder what happens if this
> >   one has a value of active, byt the rowstatus in some of
> >   the other (base) tables have a value of notInservice or
> >   notReady ??
> > 
> >   Are we all supposed to try and figure this out, or would it
> >   be better to put something about this in the various
> >   DESCRIPTION clauses?
> > 
> > - In fact the whole fate-sharing between all the tables may
> >   need to be described. I see some of it in section 5.5. and
> >   5.6 of the document, but also from that I do not yet see
> >   what the implications are if the rowstatus in one table is
> >   notInservice, while others are actve or  maybe notReady,
> >   or maybe do not (yet) exist.
> >   I must also admit that I have not studied the T11 documents
> >   much (in fact very little) yet. But I'd hope that these
> >   basic question would be answered in the IETF MIB document
> >   itself.
> > 
> > - I see no persistency behaviour (or a link to the StorageType
> >   objects in the base table in t11ZsActivateTable.
> >   I think it is clear that the writable objects are all
> >   volatile (they seem to be control objects that cause an
> >   action when SET).
> > 
> > - For namingconsistency in:
> >     T11ZsActiveZoneEntry ::= SEQUENCE {
> >        t11ZsActiveZoneIndex      Unsigned32,
> >        t11ZsActiveZoneName       T11ZoningName,
> >        t11ZsActiveBroadcast      TruthValue,
> >        t11ZsActiveHardZoning     TruthValue
> >     }
> >   I would insert a "Zone" before "Broadcast" and before "Hardzoning"
> > 
> >   By the way, t11ZsActiveZoneSetName in the T11ZsActiveEntry might be
> >   (at first sight) perceived to be in the T11ZsActiveZoneEntry.
> >   I understand why it has that name, but it may consfuse some
> >   people.
> > 
> > - t11ZsActiveBroadcast and t11ZsActiveHardZoning both have in
> >   their DESCRIPTION clauses:
> >              This object is only instantiated in Enhanced mode."
> > 
> >   would we not want to specify that in a MODULE-COMPLIANCE for
> >   basic mode and one for enhanced mode?
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > --------- NITS/TYPOs
> > 
> > - In one but last para of DESCRIPTION clause of MODULE-IDENTITY
> > 
> >      When this MIB is used for Basic Zoning Management, the same
> >      set of MIBs objects as used for Enhanced mode are used to
> > 
> >   s/MIBs objects/MIB objects/
> > 
> > - In t11ZsServerFabricIndex, the last 2 paragraphs of the
> >   DESCRIPTION clause seem redundant with the DESCRIPTION clause
> >   of the TC itself. I would remove them. The idea of a TC is
> >   to have one place (namely in the DESCRIPTION clause of the TC)
> >   to describe the (basic) semantics of the objects that use 
> >   the TC as a SYNTAX.
> > 
> > - t11ZsServerCapabilityObject
> >   I think I would rename zonesetDb(1) to zoneSetDb(1)
> >   but this is pretty subjective taste of course.
> > 
> > - last para of description clasue of t11ZsServerDatabaseStorageType
> > 
> >            This value of this object is a...
> > 
> >   s/This/The/ ??
> >   
> > - For t11ZsAttribType maybe add "other values reserved" in the 
> >   DESCRIPTION clause. I went looking it up, because in an 
> >   earlier object we had E0-EF as Vendor specific. So I thought
> >   that might also be the case here. But the text in the 
> >   REFERENCEd docment/section told me they are reserved.
> > 
> > - for
> >    t11ZsActivateRequest OBJECT-TYPE
> >      SYNTAX       Unsigned32 (0..4294967295)
> >      MAX-ACCESS   read-write
> >      STATUS       current
> >      DESCRIPTION
> >            "Setting this object to a value is a request for a
> >            Zone Set to be activated on the fabric which is
> >            represented by this row.  The Zone Set to be
> >            activated is the one for which t11ZsSetIndex has
> >            the same value.
> > 
> >            If a Zone Set is already active on a fabric when a
> >            request is made to activate a different one on that
> >            fabric, then the existing Zone Set is automatically
> >            deactivated and the specified Zone Set is activated
> >            in its place.
> > 
> >            The value of this object when read is always 0."
> > 
> >    It seems that setting the value to zero has no effect. Right?
> >    But zero seems to also have special meaning. Oh well. I might
> >    indicate it by using 
> >      SYNTAX       Unsigned32 (0 | 1..4294967295)
> >    but that is subjective taste I guess.
> > 
> > - similarly, for
> > 
> >     t11ZsFabricIndex OBJECT-TYPE
> >         SYNTAX       Unsigned32 (0..4096)
> > 
> >   I think I would use  
> > 
> >         SYNTAX       Unsigned32 (0..4095 | 4096)
> > 
> >   to indicate that 4096 has special meaning.
> > 
> >   Maybe I would even create a 
> > 
> >       T11FabricIndexOrAll ::= TEXTUAL-CONVENTION
> > 
> >   So it could if an "ALL" option is needed in the future that it is
> >   (or at least can be) done in a consistent maner.
> > 
> > - I personally prefer to name notifications xxxNotification instead
> >   of naming them xxxNotify. But I admit that that is subjective.
> > 
> > 
> > Bert
> > 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> imss mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/imss
> 

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