[imss] AD Review for draft-ietf-imss-fc-fcsp-mib-02.txt

"Romascanu, Dan (Dan)" <dromasca@avaya.com> Thu, 05 June 2008 14:51 UTC

Return-Path: <imss-bounces@ietf.org>
X-Original-To: imss-archive@optimus.ietf.org
Delivered-To: ietfarch-imss-archive@core3.amsl.com
Received: from [] (localhost []) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 40EB33A6D61; Thu, 5 Jun 2008 07:51:54 -0700 (PDT)
X-Original-To: imss@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: imss@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 62B1B3A6D28 for <imss@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 5 Jun 2008 07:51:53 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.644
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.644 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.045, BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id HjaFysg3DJup for <imss@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 5 Jun 2008 07:51:49 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from nj300815-nj-outbound.avaya.com (nj300815-nj-outbound.net.avaya.com []) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 376673A6C32 for <imss@ietf.org>; Thu, 5 Jun 2008 07:50:28 -0700 (PDT)
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.27,596,1204520400"; d="scan'208";a="122242724"
Received: from unknown (HELO nj300815-nj-erheast.avaya.com) ([]) by nj300815-nj-outbound.avaya.com with ESMTP; 05 Jun 2008 10:50:33 -0400
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.27,596,1204520400"; d="scan'208";a="206569769"
Received: from unknown (HELO 307622ANEX5.global.avaya.com) ([]) by nj300815-nj-erheast-out.avaya.com with ESMTP; 05 Jun 2008 10:50:33 -0400
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5
Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
MIME-Version: 1.0
Date: Thu, 5 Jun 2008 16:50:31 +0200
Message-ID: <EDC652A26FB23C4EB6384A4584434A04CA59B1@307622ANEX5.global.avaya.com>
Thread-Topic: AD Review for draft-ietf-imss-fc-fcsp-mib-02.txt
Thread-Index: AcjHG4Chcu4cW/ZQQyqcO2tGl36Dtw==
From: "Romascanu, Dan (Dan)" <dromasca@avaya.com>
To: <imss@ietf.org>
Subject: [imss] AD Review for draft-ietf-imss-fc-fcsp-mib-02.txt
X-BeenThere: imss@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: Internet and Management Support for Storage Working Group <imss.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/imss>, <mailto:imss-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/private/imss>
List-Post: <mailto:imss@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:imss-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/imss>, <mailto:imss-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: imss-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: imss-bounces@ietf.org

The document is mature and seems stable. As the comments in these review
are relatively minor or editorial, I recommend sending the document to
IETF Last Call, and consider these comments as LC comments, to be
processed and fixed (if necessary) together with other LC comments. 

T1. Should not the arrows for Get Policy Summary and Get Policy Objects
in the diagram in 3.4.4 be bi-directional? 

T2. The DESCRIPTION clause of the T11FcSpHashCalculationStatus TC -
'Writing a value of 'correct' or 'stale' to this object is an error
('wrongValue')." As a MIB module could in theory be used with other
protocols than SNMP a better formulation is 'Writing a value of
'correct' or 'stale' to this object is an error (SNMP 'wrongValue' or
the equivalent in other protocols)."

T3. Why is not T11FcSpAlphaNumName an SnmpAdminName with the appropriate
size limitation? 

T4. I do not see storage defined for t11FcSpPoOperTable and no
storageType object either

E1. Running idnits results in the following references warnings: 

-- Obsolete informational reference (is this intentional?): RFC 2837
     (Obsoleted by RFC 4044)

  -- No information found for draft-ietf-ipsp-ikeaction-mib-nn - is the

  -- No information found for draft-ietf-ipsp-ipsecaction-mib-nn - is
     name correct?

E2. Please expand the following acronyms at first occurrence: HBA, ESP,

E3. Delete the comment on the SYNTAX line of the T11FcSpPrecedence

E4.  Does the notation INCITS xxx/200x mean that the x values need to be
filled in? In this case these values should be filled in until the time
the document is submitted for approval to the IESG, or appropriate RFC
Editor notes should be created to instruct the RFC Editor what to do. 


imss mailing list