[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
- [imss] Changes to draft-ietf-imss-fc-fam-mib-00.t… Keith McCloghrie
- [imss] Re: Changes to draft-ietf-imss-fc-fam-mib-… Keith McCloghrie
- Re: [imss] Re: Changes to draft-ietf-imss-fc-fam-… Keith McCloghrie
- [imss] Re: Agenda for next week's T11.5 Managemen… Keith McCloghrie
- Re: [imss] FW: MIB Doctor review draft-ietf-imss-… Keith McCloghrie
- Re: [imss] FW: MIB Doctor review draft-ietf-imss-… Keith McCloghrie
- Re: [imss] FW: MIB Doctor review draft-ietf-imss-… Keith McCloghrie
- Re: [imss] Last Call: 'Fibre-Channel Name Server … Keith McCloghrie
- Re: [imss] Last Call: 'Fibre-Channel Name Server … Keith McCloghrie
- [imss] Re: DISCUSS on Keith McCloghrie
- [imss] Re: AD review of: draft-ietf-imss-fc-fspf-… Keith McCloghrie
- [imss] Re: AD review of: draft-ietf-imss-fc-fspf-… Keith McCloghrie
- [imss] Re: AD review of: draft-ietf-imss-fc-rtm-m… Keith McCloghrie
- [imss] Re: AD review of: draft-ietf-imss-fc-fspf-… Keith McCloghrie
- [imss] Re: AD review of: draft-ietf-imss-fc-fspf-… Claudio DeSanti
- Re: [imss] RE: AD review of: draft-ietf-imss-fc-r… Keith McCloghrie
- Re: [imss] RE: AD review of: draft-ietf-imss-fc-r… Keith McCloghrie
- Re: [imss] imss WG Last Call: Fibre Channel RSCN,… Keith McCloghrie
- Re: [imss] imss WG Last Call: Fibre Channel RSCN,… Keith McCloghrie
- Re: [imss] imss WG Last Call: Fibre Channel RSCN,… Keith McCloghrie
- Re: [imss] WG last call: draft-ietf-imss-fc-rscn-… Keith McCloghrie
- Re: [imss] imss WG Last Call: Fibre Channel RSCN,… Keith McCloghrie
- Re: [imss] WG Last Call: draft-ietf-imss-fc-fcs-m… Keith McCloghrie
- [imss] A couple of loose ends Keith McCloghrie
- Re: [imss] WG last call review: T11-FC-FABRIC-LOC… Keith McCloghrie
- Re: [imss] WG last call review: T11-FC-FABRIC-LOC… Keith McCloghrie
- Re: [imss] WG last call review: T11-FC-FABRIC-LOC… Claudio DeSanti
- Re: [imss] WG last call review: T11-FC-ZONE-SERVE… Keith McCloghrie
- Re: [imss] Last Call comments on draft-ietf-imss-… Keith McCloghrie
- RE: [imss] Last Call comments on draft-ietf-imss-… Black_David
- Re: [imss] Keith McCloghrie
- Re: [imss] Keith McCloghrie
- Re: [imss] T11 MIB issue resolutions Keith McCloghrie
- Re: [imss] T11 MIB issue resolutions Keith McCloghrie
- [imss] Rereview for draft-ietf-imss-fc-rscn-mib-0… Wijnen, Bert (Bert)
- Re: [imss] Rereview of: draft-ietf-imss-fc-fcs-mi… Keith McCloghrie
- RE: [imss] Rereview of: draft-ietf-imss-fc-fcs-mi… Black_David
- Re: [imss] re-view: T11-FC-FABRIC-LOCK-MIB in Keith McCloghrie
- RE: [imss] re-view: T11-FC-FABRIC-LOCK-MIB in Wijnen, Bert (Bert)
- Re: [imss] re-review: T11-FC-ZONE-SERVER-MIB in Keith McCloghrie
- RE: [imss] re-review: T11-FC-ZONE-SERVER-MIB in Wijnen, Bert (Bert)
- Re: [imss] Acceptance of draft-kzm-imss-fc-fcsp-m… Keith McCloghrie
- RE: [imss] Acceptance of draft-kzm-imss-fc-fcsp-m… Romascanu, Dan (Dan)
- Re: [imss] imss WG Last Call: FC-SP MIB Keith McCloghrie
- RE: [imss] imss WG Last Call: FC-SP MIB Black_David
- Re: [imss] imss WG Last Call: FC-SP MIB Keith McCloghrie
- Re: [imss] imss WG Last Call: FC-SP MIB Keith McCloghrie
- RE: [imss] imss WG Last Call: FC-SP MIB WIJNEN, Bert (Bert)
- Re: [imss] imss WG Last Call: FC-SP MIB Keith McCloghrie
- RE: [imss] imss WG Last Call: FC-SP MIB Black_David
- Re: [imss] imss WG Last Call: FC-SP MIB Keith McCloghrie
- RE: [imss] imss WG Last Call: FC-SP MIB WIJNEN, Bert (Bert)
- RE: [imss] imss WG Last Call: FC-SP MIB WIJNEN, Bert (Bert)
- Re: [imss] imss WG Last Call: FC-SP MIB Keith McCloghrie
- Re: [imss] MIB doctor review part 1 (SYNTAX Check… Keith McCloghrie
- Re: [imss] MIB doctor review part 2 (T11-FC-SP-TC… Keith McCloghrie
- RE: [imss] MIB doctor review part 2 (T11-FC-SP-TC… WIJNEN, Bert (Bert)
- RE: [imss] imss WG Last Call: FC-SP MIB WIJNEN, Bert (Bert)
- Re: [imss] AD Review for draft-ietf-imss-fc-fcsp-… Keith McCloghrie
- Re: [imss] AD Review for draft-ietf-imss-fc-fcsp-… Black_David
- Re: [imss] AD Review for draft-ietf-imss-fc-fcsp-… Romascanu, Dan (Dan)