[imss] RE: MIB doctor review for T11-FC-SP-AUTHENTICATION-MIB
"Bert Wijnen - IETF" <bertietf@bwijnen.net> Thu, 03 January 2008 11:56 UTC
Return-path: <imss-bounces@ietf.org>
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JAOgb-0003EO-CB; Thu, 03 Jan 2008 06:56:33 -0500
Received: from imss by megatron.ietf.org with local (Exim 4.43) id 1JAOgZ-00035m-He for imss-confirm+ok@megatron.ietf.org; Thu, 03 Jan 2008 06:56:31 -0500
Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JAOgZ-00031J-5x for imss@ietf.org; Thu, 03 Jan 2008 06:56:31 -0500
Received: from relay.versatel.net ([62.250.3.110]) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with smtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JAOgX-0005Hs-EL for imss@ietf.org; Thu, 03 Jan 2008 06:56:30 -0500
Received: (qmail 49736 invoked from network); 3 Jan 2008 11:56:27 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO bwMedion) (87.215.199.34) by relay.versatel.net with SMTP; 3 Jan 2008 11:56:27 -0000
From: Bert Wijnen - IETF <bertietf@bwijnen.net>
To: Keith McCloghrie <kzm@cisco.com>
Date: Thu, 03 Jan 2008 12:56:37 +0100
Message-ID: <NIEJLKBACMDODCGLGOCNMEKAEEAA.bertietf@bwijnen.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3 (Normal)
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.6604 (9.0.2911.0)
In-Reply-To: <200712311650.IAA04108@cisco.com>
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.3198
Importance: Normal
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: b132cb3ed2d4be2017585bf6859e1ede
Cc: imss@ietf.org, Black_David <Black_David@emc.com>, Dan Romascanu <dromasca@avaya.com>
Subject: [imss] RE: MIB doctor review for T11-FC-SP-AUTHENTICATION-MIB
X-BeenThere: imss@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: Internet and Management Support for Storage Working Group <imss.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/imss>, <mailto:imss-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:imss@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:imss-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/imss>, <mailto:imss-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: imss-bounces@ietf.org
Thanks Keith. ALso for the explanation on the discontinuity question I had. I am OK with it Bert Wijnen > -----Oorspronkelijk bericht----- > Van: Keith McCloghrie [mailto:kzm@cisco.com] > Verzonden: maandag 31 december 2007 17:50 > Aan: Bert Wijnen - IETF > CC: imss@ietf.org; Keith McCloghrie; Black_David; Dan Romascanu > Onderwerp: Re: MIB doctor review for T11-FC-SP-AUTHENTICATION-MIB > > > Hi Bert, > > Thanks for your reviews. Here is my response to the first: > > > This is a review of the module as extracted from the > > prelimenary draft-ietf-imss-fc-fcsp-mib-01.txt document > > > > - I see > > t11FcSpAuthenticationMIB MODULE-IDENTITY > > LAST-UPDATED "200702190000Z" > > ORGANIZATION "T11" > > > > I think that IOETF IMSS WG should be included as one of > > the ORGANIZATIONs that worked on this MIB module > > Done. > > > - This is just a nit: > > > > t11FcSpAuMIBIdentities > > OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::= { t11FcSpAuthenticationMIB 1 } > > t11FcSpAuMIBObjects > > OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::= { t11FcSpAuthenticationMIB 2 } > > t11FcSpAuMIBConformance > > OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::= { t11FcSpAuthenticationMIB 3 } > > t11FcSpAuMIBNotifications > > OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::= { t11FcSpAuthenticationMIB 0 } > > > > Most MIB modules have MIBObjects as 1 and Conformace as 2. > > This MIB module has additional a set of Identities. SO I personally > > would do: > > > > t11FcSpAuMIBNotifications > > OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::= { t11FcSpAuthenticationMIB 0 } > > t11FcSpAuMIBObjects > > OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::= { t11FcSpAuthenticationMIB 1 } > > t11FcSpAuMIBConformance > > OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::= { t11FcSpAuthenticationMIB 2 } > > t11FcSpAuMIBIdentities > > OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::= { t11FcSpAuthenticationMIB 3 } > > > > But and OID is just an OID, so this is not a flaw. Just a consistency > > thing > > that I personally would try to follow. > > Done. > > > - It is unclear to me why > > t11FcSpAuEntityName OBJECT-TYPE > > SYNTAX FcNameIdOrZero (SIZE (8)) > > > > Has a fixed size of 8. I think I would have expected (8 | 16) > > You reference > > "fcmInstanceWwn & fcmSwitchWWN, > > 'Fibre Channel Management MIB', RFC 4044, May 2005." > > And fcmInstanceWwn and fcmSwitchWWN there (as far as I can tell also > > allow 8 or 16. In fact they even allows for zero, but I can > see you do > > (or may) not want to allow that here. > > Section 5.3.3 of FC-SP restricts the length to 8 bytes, so I believe the > restriction is correct. I will add section 5.3.3 to the REFERENCE clause. > > > - So for my undestanding, when I see this: > > > > t11FcSpAuIfStatTimeouts OBJECT-TYPE > > SYNTAX Counter32 > > MAX-ACCESS read-only > > STATUS current > > DESCRIPTION > > "The number of FC-SP Authentication Protocol messages sent > > by the particular entity on the particular Fabric on the > > particular interface, for which no response was received > > within a timeout period. > > > > This counter has no discontinuities other than those > > which all Counter32's have when sysUpTime=0." > > > > Then I understand from that that the instrumentation code > for this MIB > > module will save these values in persistent storage, and so when it > > restarts it still knows the values? > > Or are you saying that the "master-agent" and "t11-subagent" > are always > > a monolithic entity and will die/restart together? > > I'm saying is that sysUpTime gets reset to zero in any MIB view which > includes this MIB whenever this Counter32 has a discontinutity. > Yes, this can achieved by "a monolithic entity" and by "persistent > storage of the value" but it can also be achieved in other ways as > well. > > The alternative is to define one or more additional discontinuity > timestamps. The number (of these additional timestamps) required > is dependent on the architecture of the implementation. One > possibility would be to add a TimeStamp object to fcmInstanceTable > (defined in RFC 4044), but if we were going to do that, I think we > should have done it three years ago, before RFCs 4438, 4439, 4625, > 4626, 4747, 4935, 4936 and 4983 were approved without referencing such > a TimeStamp object. > > Thanks, > Keith. > > PS. I'll make the updated document available after I've responded to > your other reviews. > _______________________________________________ imss mailing list imss@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/imss
- [imss] MIB doctor review for T11-FC-SP-AUTHENTICA… Bert Wijnen - IETF
- [imss] FW: MIB doctor review for T11-FC-SP-AUTHEN… Black_David
- [imss] Re: MIB doctor review for T11-FC-SP-AUTHEN… Keith McCloghrie
- [imss] RE: MIB doctor review for T11-FC-SP-AUTHEN… Bert Wijnen - IETF