[imss] Re: AD review of: draft-ietf-imss-fc-rtm-mib-02.txt

Keith McCloghrie <kzm@cisco.com> Wed, 08 March 2006 15:21 UTC

Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FH0TH-0001lT-ME; Wed, 08 Mar 2006 10:21:03 -0500
Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FH0TH-0001lO-63 for imss@ietf.org; Wed, 08 Mar 2006 10:21:03 -0500
Received: from sj-iport-1-in.cisco.com ([171.71.176.70] helo=sj-iport-1.cisco.com) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FH0TG-0005C3-SM for imss@ietf.org; Wed, 08 Mar 2006 10:21:03 -0500
Received: from sj-core-5.cisco.com ([171.71.177.238]) by sj-iport-1.cisco.com with ESMTP; 08 Mar 2006 07:21:02 -0800
Received: from cisco.com (cypher.cisco.com [171.69.11.142]) by sj-core-5.cisco.com (8.12.10/8.12.6) with ESMTP id k28FL17T023754; Wed, 8 Mar 2006 07:21:01 -0800 (PST)
Received: (from kzm@localhost) by cisco.com (8.8.8-Cisco List Logging/8.8.8) id HAA21168; Wed, 8 Mar 2006 07:21:01 -0800 (PST)
From: Keith McCloghrie <kzm@cisco.com>
Message-Id: <200603081521.HAA21168@cisco.com>
To: bwijnen@lucent.com
Date: Wed, 08 Mar 2006 07:21:01 -0800
In-Reply-To: <no.id> from "Wijnen, Bert (Bert)" at Mar 06, 2006 07:33:52 PM
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.5 PL5]
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Spam-Score: 1.8 (+)
X-Scan-Signature: cf3becbbd6d1a45acbe2ffd4ab88bdc2
Cc: sgai@cisco.com, cds@cisco.com, "\"Imss E-mail" <imss@ietf.org>, "\"Keith McCloghrie E-mail" <kzm@cisco.com>, "\"Dan Romascanu E-mail" <dromasca@avaya.com>, skode@cisco.com, Black_David@emc.com
Subject: [imss] Re: AD review of: draft-ietf-imss-fc-rtm-mib-02.txt
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

Bert,

Thanks for the review.

> This document is ready for IETF Last Call.
> 
> One topic that I would prefer to see addressed:
> 
> - When I see:
>     t11FcRouteDestAddrId OBJECT-TYPE
>        SYNTAX      FcAddressIdOrZero
>        MAX-ACCESS  not-accessible
>        STATUS      current
>        DESCRIPTION
>            "The destination Fibre Channel Address Identifier of
>            this route.  A zero-length string for this field is
>            not allowed."
>        ::= { t11FcRouteEntry 1 }
> 
>   I then wonder why the syntax is not:
> 
>       SYNTAX      FcAddressIdOrZero (SIZE(3))
> 
>   So that the restriction that zero-length is not allowed is
>   also machine readable.
 
While I agree in principle, I think it also has one other effect: 
it changes t11FcRouteDestAddrId from being a variable-length string
into a fixed-length string, which only matters because 
t11FcRouteDestAddrId is present in the INDEX clause, and thus,
I fear that some implementations might get the INDEX-ing wrong (re:
difference between bullets 2 and 3 at top of RFC 2578's page 28).
Thus, if you really want to see the restriction reflected in the
SYNTAX clause, I would prefer to do so as:

       SYNTAX      OCTET STRING (SIZE (3))

so that it uses a regular construct, and implementors will immediately
know what to do.  Do you agree ?

>   Could be addressesd after IETF Last Call, even with an RFC-Editor note.
> 
> Mainly have some NITs below.
> You may consider them as initial IETF Last Call comments.
> Let me know if you rather do a new rev first or if you
> prefer to do IETF LC now. I will probably let IETF LC extend
> beyond the IETF week, because people are probably busy reviewing
> documents for the IETF week itself.
 
I'd prefer to fix them now, but I'll wait for your response to this
message before doing so.

> - t11FcRouteRowStatus has a pretty meager DESCRIPTION clause
>   For example, from the DESCRIPTION clause of t11FcRouteIfDown
>   it seems that maybe a 'destroy' to the RowStatus object
>   may not take immediate effect? You might want to describe that.
>   It is also unclear if any writeable objects can be written
>   when a row is active?
 
The last sentence of RowStatus's DESCRIPTION in RFC 2579 says that
a 'destroy' requires the row to be removed immediately.  There was
discussion in T11.5 of the relationship between this table and the
routing mechanisms that a FC switch uses, and we agreed that such a
relationship is proprietary, and that the MIB needs to stay at
arms-length from being too specific about this relationship.  Thus, I
would prefer not to add text talking about it.

There is one thing I can add, which is implicit in t11FcRouteTable's
DESCRIPTION, but it would probably be useful to add a more explicit
statement in t11FcRouteRowStatus's DESCRIPTION:

         The only rows which can be deleted by setting this object to
         'destroy' are those for which t11FcRouteProto has the value
         'netmgmt'.

Then, it won't be so meagre :-).
 
> - The 4 OBJECT clauses that you did as comments in the
>   MODULE-COMPLIANCE are normally put as comments inside the
>   DESCRIPTION clause of the MODULE-COMPLIANCE clause itself.
>   That way the text is better kept when MIB module gets
>   extracted from RFC. Not a blocking comment though.
 
OK, I'll move them.  (The downside is that the double-quotes have to
change, e.g., to single-quotes).

> - Section 7 seems redundant with the back matter, and might as
>   well be removed.
 
I'll let the RFC Editor do that.

> - In the references section, are the details for [FC-SW-4] now
>   known? If so, might want to fill them out.

Yes, we filled them in recently on one of the other FC MIBs.
Thanks for reminding me of that.

Keith.

_______________________________________________
imss mailing list
imss@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/imss