[imss] RE: A couple of loose ends
"Wijnen, Bert (Bert)" <bwijnen@lucent.com> Thu, 28 September 2006 10:18 UTC
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1GSsyV-0002jX-Pe; Thu, 28 Sep 2006 06:18:39 -0400
Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1GSsyU-0002jS-2T for imss@ietf.org; Thu, 28 Sep 2006 06:18:38 -0400
Received: from ihemail3.lucent.com ([135.245.0.37]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1GSsyS-0000pc-Nl for imss@ietf.org; Thu, 28 Sep 2006 06:18:38 -0400
Received: from nl0006exch001h.wins.lucent.com (h135-85-76-62.lucent.com [135.85.76.62]) by ihemail3.lucent.com (8.13.6/IER-o) with ESMTP id k8SAIUSv006243; Thu, 28 Sep 2006 05:18:31 -0500 (CDT)
Received: by nl0006exch001h.nl.lucent.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2657.72) id <R9BL21V1>; Thu, 28 Sep 2006 12:18:29 +0200
Message-ID: <7D5D48D2CAA3D84C813F5B154F43B1550AC49564@nl0006exch001u.nl.lucent.com>
From: "Wijnen, Bert (Bert)" <bwijnen@lucent.com>
To: Keith McCloghrie <kzm@cisco.com>
Date: Thu, 28 Sep 2006 12:18:25 +0200
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2657.72)
Content-Type: text/plain
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: 0770535483960d190d4a0d020e7060bd
Cc: imss@ietf.org
Subject: [imss] RE: A couple of loose ends
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
These suggested resolutions seem fine to me. My main objective of my comments was to get things clear enough so that other people (and also I myself) can understand how things are supposed to work. Bert > -----Original Message----- > From: Keith McCloghrie [mailto:kzm@cisco.com] > Sent: Tuesday, September 26, 2006 19:13 > To: bwijnen@lucent.com > Cc: kzm@cisco.com; imss@ietf.org > Subject: A couple of loose ends > > > Bert, > > In order to make further progress in updating the text of the I-D's, > there are two loose ends that I would like to resolve. > > One is: > > > From: "Wijnen, Bert (Bert)" <bwijnen@lucent.com> > > To: Keith McCloghrie <kzm@cisco.com> > > Cc: imss@ietf.org > > Subject: RE: [imss] WG Last Call: draft-ietf-imss-fc-fcs-mib-00.txt > > Date: Wed, 6 Sep 2006 14:51:38 +0200 > > > > ... > > > > > > t11FcsMgmtAddr OBJECT-TYPE > > > > SYNTAX SnmpAdminString > > > > MAX-ACCESS read-only > > > > STATUS current > > > > DESCRIPTION > > > > "The management address of this entry. > > > > The format of this object may be based on the > > > > format of the Uniform Resource Locator (URL). > > > > For example, for SNMP, see RFC 4088." > > > > > > > > So it syas "the format MAY be based on..." (my > emphasis on MAY). > > > > So, does that mean it may also be based on something else? > > > > How do I determine what the actual format is? > > > > > > On re-reading FC-GS-5, I see that it's required to be a URL, and > > > it's the use of 4088 which is not required. So, I'll > change it to: > > > > > > The format of this object is a Uniform > Resource Locator > > > (URL), e.g., for SNMP, see RFC 4088." > > > > But is a URL normally represented by UTF-8? > > I doubt it? > > > > I know that (RFC 2788) has: > > > > -- Uniform Resource Locators are stored in URLStrings. > > > > URLString ::= TEXTUAL-CONVENTION > > DISPLAY-HINT "255a" > > STATUS current > > DESCRIPTION > > "A Uniform Resource Locator represented in accordance > > with RFCs 1738 and 2368, presented in the NVT ASCII > > charset defined in RFC 854." > > SYNTAX OCTET STRING (SIZE (0..255)) > > > > Would that not be more appropriate? > > Yes, I am changing t11FcsMgmtAddr's syntax to be URLString. > > The other loose end is: > > > From: "Wijnen, Bert (Bert)" <bwijnen@lucent.com> > > To: Black_David@emc.com, imss@ietf.org > > Date: Thu, 7 Sep 2006 17:50:44 +0200 > > Cc: dromasca@avaya.com > > Subject: [imss] WG last call review: T11-FC-FABRIC-LOCK-MIB in > > draft-ietf-imss-fc-zs-mib-00.txt > > > > ... > > > > - Reading: > > > > t11FLockRowStatus OBJECT-TYPE > > SYNTAX RowStatus > > MAX-ACCESS read-create > > STATUS current > > DESCRIPTION > > "The status of this conceptual row. > > > > A row for which the value of t11FLockInitiatorType is > > not 'snmp' cannot be deleted via this object." > > > > I wonder: > > - can a row be set to notReady or notInservice for rows that > > were not created by 'snmp'? I guess not, but one could get > > the impression that such is possible based on this one > > sentence > > - What is the persistence behaviour of a row created via snmp? > > Probably nonVolatile? But would be good to say something > > about it. > > > > - SO I see: > > > > t11FLockStatus OBJECT-TYPE > > SYNTAX INTEGER { > > active(1), > > settingUp(2), > > rejectFailure(3), > > otherFailure(4) > > } > > > > and wonder what will happen if the lock gets released? > > not sure I understand how such happens, but I would > assume a lock does > > not stay forever once it has become active, does it? > > Does the entry disappear in that case? > > I think the issue is that the current text in the MIB is not explicit > enough in explaining when rows exist in the table. In reviewing your > comments and determining how to update the text to address them, I'm > now planning to provide a more explicit explanation by adding > this text > to the DESCRIPTION of the t11FLockTable: > > Each entry in this table represents either: > > 1) a current fabric lock, > 2) an in-progress attempt, requested via SNMP, to setup > a lock, or > 3) a failed attempt, requested via SNMP, to setup a lock. > > If an entry is created via t11FLockRowStatus but the > attempt to obtain the lock fails, then the entry continues > to exist until it is deleted via t11FLockRowStatus, or > it is overwritten by the lock being established via > a means other than SNMP, but note that rows created via > SNMP are not retained over restarts." > > A purist might argue that this design has a single table for > two functions: > 1) for current locks, and 2) SNMP attenpts to setup a lock, > which should > be kept in separate tables, so that the "overwritten by the lock being > established via a means other than SNMP" could not happen, but I don't > think the "overwritten" is a large enough issue to warrant the extra > complication of two tables. D'you agree ? > > So, I see the addition of the above text as a clarification, > not as a change. > > Keith. > _______________________________________________ imss mailing list imss@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/imss
- [imss] RE: A couple of loose ends Wijnen, Bert (Bert)