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

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

W.r.t.
> > One thing I do see that may need some action is the fact that this 
> > document has normative dependencies on these 2 documents:
> > 
> > [IPSP-IKE-ACTION]
> >      Baer, M., Charlet, R., Hardaker, W., Story, R., and C. Wang,
"IPsec
> >      Security Policy IKE Action MIB", draft-ietf-ipsp-ikeaction-mib-
> >      nn.txt, work-in-progress, 19 October 2006.
> > 
> > [IPSP-IPSEC-ACTION]
> >      Baer, M., Charlet, R., Hardaker, W., Story, R., and C. Wang,
"IPsec
> >      Security Policy IPsec Action MIB",
draft-ietf-ipsp-ipsecaction-mib-
> >      nn.txt, work-in-progress, 19 October 2006.
> > 
> > 
> > However, I do not see that any IMPORT is done for those 2 IPSP MIB 
> > modules, so maybe the dependency is not really normative?
> 
> I agree that such a "dependency" is a little risky, because I 
> too submitted some comments on those MIBs.  The reason that 
> I'm using quotes around "dependency" is because it is not the 
> definitions in this MIB which depend on any definitions in 
> those MIBs, but rather the explanation of why this MIB has 
> the set of (certificate-related) objects that it does.  
> Without such explanations, the definitions in this MIB would 
> appear incomplete, and it seems to me that making it complete 
> requires either:
> 
> 1. the reference to the IPSP MIB modules that it currently 
> has, or 2. definition of new MIB objects which 
> duplicate/overlap with the IPSP MIB modules.
> 
> Given that the IPSP MIB modules are still expected to get 
> approved (in the future), then I'd say #2 is at least 
> undesirable, and probably unacceptable.
> 

yep... that sounds unacceptable. At the other hand, you may
end up having you approved I-D in the RFC-Editor queue for
many years to come waiting for the dependent IPSP MIB module
documents to come through (sorry... even though there
was a message about the status of IPSP MIB modules in August
this year, I have seen no activity since. I keep being
very pessimistic about a reasonable result in this space).

Maybe one of the ADs (possibly security ADs) can say something
about this issue or about the "dependency". As long as the
docs are listed as normative references, your doc will get
block at the RFC-Editor gates till those normative docs are
ready to become an RFC as well.


> So, if you can provide guidance on how to reference the IPSP 
> MIB modules in a way which avoids creating normative 
> dependencies, then please do.
> 

If I read your section 4.6, then it seems that the 
ipsaCredentialTable, the ipsaCredentialSegmentTable and the
ipiaCredMngCRLTable are needed to manage CAs and CRLs.
So that to me seems quite a dependency. Are you guys aware
of how your implementations will/might run without those
tables? Have they currently been implemented in prorpietary ways?
Or have pre-RFC implementations been fielded? 

>From sect 4.6, it seems that your MODULE-COMPLIANCE ought to state
that those tables from IPSP MIB modules have to be supported in
order to let your MIB modules/security-features work, no?

Bert
> Keith.
> 
> 
> > I will find out when
> > I read the whole FC-SP MIB document. Sofar I did notice:
> > 
> > - 4.8.6.  The T11-FC-SP-CERTS-MIB Module
> > 
> >    This MIB module specifies extensions to IPSP MIBs 
> [IPSP-IPSEC-ACTION]
> >    and [IPSP-IKE-ACTION] which are specific to Fibre Channel.  In
> >    particular, it specifies one table, t11FcSpCertsTable, 
> with a row per
> >    certificate indicating how that certificate is being used, and
> >    containing the "name" of the certificate.  This "name" 
> can be used to
> >    obtain information, which is independent of FC-SP, about the
> >    certificate from the ipsaCredentialTable (and from the
> >    ipsaCredentialSegmentTable if the certificate is longer than 1024
> >    bytes).
> > 
> > - In the T11-FC-SP-CERTS-MIB (page 230/231:
> > 
> >            Since FC-SP leverages a subset of IPsec and 
> IKEv2 (see RFC
> >            4595), a subset of the management information defined for
> >            the use of certificates with IPsec/IKEv2 is also 
> applicable
> >            to FC-SP.  Thus, this MIB module leverages RFC wwww and
> >            RFC xxxx for the management of certificates, CAs 
> and CRLs.
> >    -- RFC Editor: replace wwww with actual RFC number for
> >    -- [IPSP-IPSEC-ACTION], and replace xxxx with actual RFC 
> number for
> >    -- [IPSP-IKE-ACTION] & remove this note
> > 
> >            Specifically, the information defined in this MIB module
> >            consists of a pointer into the IPsec/IKEv2 MIB modules,
> >            plus minimal additional item(s) of information which are
> >            considered to be important in a Fibre Channel 
> environment.
> > 
> > So it does sound normative. So I have a warning:
> > 
> > I have been reviewing those 2 IPSP documents a few times 
> over the last 
> > (mmmm probably) 2-3 or 2-4 years, and I must warn you that 
> the cycle 
> > times on those documents are EXTREMELY slow. The current revisions 
> > are:
> > 
> >    draft-ietf-ipsp-ikeaction-mib-02.txt
> >    draft-ietf-ipsp-ipsecaction-mib-02.txt
> > 
> > which showed up as I-D on 10 Nov 2006, and both are still 
> in Revised 
> > ID needed. Those MIB documents are also pretty complex, and 
> so if/when 
> > a new revision will eventually show up (if at all), then 
> whoever needs 
> > to re-review will need a serious block of time to actually do so.
> > My personal experience is pretty bad/sad with those 2 
> documents, and I 
> > must admit that I am completely de- or un-motivated at this 
> point in 
> > time to re-review them a again if/when they do show up. But 
> possibly 
> > Dan can convince me otherwise at that time.
> > 
> > Anyway, I just wanted the authors/editors/wg-chair and WG 
> members to 
> > be aware of this risky normative dependency.
> > 
> > Bert Wijnen
> > 
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]]
> > > Sent: Wednesday, October 10, 2007 2:18 AM
> > > To: [e-mail]
> > > Cc: [e-mail]; [e-mail]
> > > Subject: [imss] 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
> > > 
> > 
> > 
> > _______________________________________________
> > imss mailing list
> > [e-mail]
> > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/imss
> > 
> 


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