RE: [imss] Re: MIB doctor review for: T11-FC-SP-SA-MIB
"Bert Wijnen - IETF" <bertietf@bwijnen.net> Thu, 03 January 2008 12:07 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 1JAOrP-00036u-BN; Thu, 03 Jan 2008 07:07:43 -0500
Received: from imss by megatron.ietf.org with local (Exim 4.43) id 1JAOrO-0002xz-81 for imss-confirm+ok@megatron.ietf.org; Thu, 03 Jan 2008 07:07:42 -0500
Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JAOrN-0002wP-Tf for imss@ietf.org; Thu, 03 Jan 2008 07:07:41 -0500
Received: from relay.versatel.net ([62.250.3.110]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with smtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JAOrM-0006bI-1h for imss@ietf.org; Thu, 03 Jan 2008 07:07:41 -0500
Received: (qmail 58678 invoked from network); 3 Jan 2008 12:07:39 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO bwMedion) (87.215.199.34) by relay.versatel.net with SMTP; 3 Jan 2008 12:07:39 -0000
From: Bert Wijnen - IETF <bertietf@bwijnen.net>
To: Keith McCloghrie <kzm@cisco.com>
Subject: RE: [imss] Re: MIB doctor review for: T11-FC-SP-SA-MIB
Date: Thu, 03 Jan 2008 13:07:51 +0100
Message-ID: <NIEJLKBACMDODCGLGOCNIEKBEEAA.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: <200801021603.m02G3At08234@sjc-cde-021.cisco.com>
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.3198
Importance: Normal
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: 87a3f533bb300b99e2a18357f3c1563d
Cc: imss@ietf.org, Black_David <Black_David@emc.com>, Dan Romascanu <dromasca@avaya.com>
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 for the answers Keith. Suggested changed look OK to me. Bert Wijnen > -----Oorspronkelijk bericht----- > Van: Keith McCloghrie [mailto:kzm@cisco.com] > Verzonden: woensdag 2 januari 2008 17:03 > Aan: Bert Wijnen - IETF > CC: imss@ietf.org; Dan Romascanu; Keith McCloghrie; Black_David > Onderwerp: [imss] Re: MIB doctor review for: T11-FC-SP-SA-MIB > > > Bert, > > > This is a review of the module as extracted from the > > prelimenary draft-ietf-imss-fc-fcsp-mib-01.txt document > > > > - I see: > > > > t11FcSpSaMIB MODULE-IDENTITY > > LAST-UPDATED "200702190000Z" > > ORGANIZATION "T11" > > > > I think that IETF IMSS WG should be included as one of > > the ORGANIZATIONs that worked on this MIB module > > Done. > > > - Similar question w.r.t. discontinuity of timers as in my > > earlier MIB reviews yesterday > > See my response to the question (in my response to your comments on > T11-FC-SP-AUTHENTICATION-MIB). > > > - t11FcSpSaPropSecurityProt OBJECT-TYPE > > SYNTAX INTEGER { espHeader(1), ctAuth(2) } > > > > I see this SYNTAX 3 times. > > Possibly candidate for a TC. Just a subjective thought. > > OK, done. > > > - FOr t11FcSpSaPropTSelListIndex and t11FcSpSaPropTransListIndex, > > I assume that a zero value means that there is no such list? > > Although from the DESCRIPTION clause of the t11FcSpSaPropRowStatus > > object I get the impression that a row with a zero value for > > either of these 2 objects cannot be made active. So maybe zero is > > not a valid value? > > I've changed the first sentence of t11FcSpSaPropTSelListIndex's > DESCRIPTION to say: > > "When the value of this objct is non-zero, it points to > the proposal's list of Traffic Selectors. The value > must be non-zero in an active row of this table. > > Similarly for to t11FcSpSaPropTransListIndex. > > > - For t11FcSpSaTSelPropEntry I am a bit confused by: > > > > The StorageType of a row in this table is specified by > > the instance of t11FcSpSaIfStorageType which is INDEX-ed > > by the same values of fcmInstanceIndex, t11FcSpSaIfIndex > > and t11FcSpSaIfFabricIndex." > > INDEX { fcmInstanceIndex, t11FcSpSaIfIndex, > > t11FcSpSaTSelPropListIndex, t11FcSpSaTSelPropIndex } > > > > The t11FcSpSaIfFabricIndex is not part of this INDEX clause, is it? > > So how can it be the same? > > > > - Same question for t11FcSpSaTransEntry > > Thanks for catching this - the intent of omitting the FabricIndex from > the INDEX clause of t11FcSpSaTSelPropTable (and t11FcSpSaTransTable) > was so that the same list of Traffic Selectors (or transforms) could be > proposed for multiple SA's even when the SA's are on different Fabrics, > which seemed like it would be useful in some situations. However, the > need to have a StorageType which is common for the lists and for the SA > proposals, introduces an (always present) complication which I think > outweighs the potential (and at most occasional) benefit. That is, I no > longer believe the omission is worthwhile. If the WG agrees, I propose > to change the rows in t11FcSpSaTSelPropTable and t11FcSpSaTransTable to > be per-Fabric, i.e., to add t11FcSpSaIfFabricIndex into the INDEX > clause of the t11FcSpSaTSelPropTable and of the t11FcSpSaTransTable. > (Indeed, the DESCRIPTION of t11FcSpSaIfStorageType is already worded to > assume this change will be made.) > > > - I think that for t11FcSpSaPairTransListIndex and > t11FcSpSaPairTransIndex > > a vlue of zero is impossible (or makes no sense). If I am correct you > > may want to exclude that via a RANGE spec. > > Done. > > > - I have seen thos combination multipel times (in the set of > MIB modules) > > > > t11FcSpSaPairLifetimeLeft OBJECT-TYPE > > SYNTAX Unsigned32 > > MAX-ACCESS read-only > > STATUS current > > DESCRIPTION > > "The remaining lifetime of this SA pair, given in the > > units specified by the value of the corresponding > > instance of t11FcSpSaPairLifetimeLeft." > > ::= { t11FcSpSaPairEntry 6 } > > > > t11FcSpSaPairLifetimeLeftUnits OBJECT-TYPE > > SYNTAX INTEGER { > > seconds(1), -- seconds > > kiloBytes(2), -- 10^^3 bytes > > megaBytes(3), -- 10^^6 bytes > > gigaBytes(4), -- 10^^9 bytes > > teraBytes(5), -- 10^^12 bytes > > petaBytes(6), -- 10^^15 bytes > > exaBytes(7), -- 10^^18 bytes > > zettaBytes(8), -- 10^^21 bytes > > yottaBytes(9) -- 10^^24 bytes > > } > > > > > > Possibel candidates for a TC? > > OK, done. > > > - I have seen > > t11FcSpSaPairTerminate OBJECT-TYPE > > SYNTAX INTEGER { noop(1), terminate(2) } > > > > That SYNTAX a few times. Candidate for a TC? > > In this case, I think it's better to leave them as-is, because the two > usages have different targets, and future additions to the enumerated > values have the potential to apply in one usage but not in the other. > > Thanks, > Keith. > > > _______________________________________________ > imss mailing list > imss@ietf.org > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/imss > _______________________________________________ imss mailing list imss@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/imss
- [imss] MIB doctor review for: T11-FC-SP-SA-MIB Bert Wijnen - IETF
- [imss] Re: MIB doctor review for: T11-FC-SP-SA-MIB Keith McCloghrie
- RE: [imss] Re: MIB doctor review for: T11-FC-SP-S… Bert Wijnen - IETF