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

"Romascanu, Dan (Dan)" <> Wed, 11 June 2008 16:04 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from [] (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id D21BC3A6886; Wed, 11 Jun 2008 09:04:20 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 08C313A6879 for <>; Wed, 11 Jun 2008 09:04:20 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.626
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.626 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.027, BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id HRIAI8uDCTux for <>; Wed, 11 Jun 2008 09:04:18 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id AE3613A6886 for <>; Wed, 11 Jun 2008 09:04:17 -0700 (PDT)
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.27,625,1204520400"; d="scan'208";a="130856560"
Received: from unknown (HELO ([]) by with ESMTP; 11 Jun 2008 12:04:43 -0400
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.27,625,1204520400"; d="scan'208";a="216893297"
Received: from unknown (HELO ([]) by with ESMTP; 11 Jun 2008 12:04:42 -0400
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5
Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
MIME-Version: 1.0
Date: Wed, 11 Jun 2008 18:04:40 +0200
Message-ID: <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Thread-Topic: [imss] AD Review for draft-ietf-imss-fc-fcsp-mib-02.txt
Thread-Index: AcjH5HfOdl57ixv9Qk+TsJ6vvifm3QD9pn3Q
References: <> from "Romascanu, Dan (Dan)" at Jun 05, 2008 04:50:31 PM <>
From: "Romascanu, Dan (Dan)" <>
To: "Keith McCloghrie" <>
Subject: Re: [imss] AD Review for draft-ietf-imss-fc-fcsp-mib-02.txt
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: Internet and Management Support for Storage Working Group <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Thanks for the answer - see in-line. 



> -----Original Message-----
> From: Keith McCloghrie [] 
> Sent: Friday, June 06, 2008 5:46 PM
> To: Romascanu, Dan (Dan)
> Cc:
> Subject: Re: [imss] AD Review for draft-ietf-imss-fc-fcsp-mib-02.txt
> Hi Dan,
> Thanks for your comments.  My responses are below.
> > 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?
> I think the I-D is correct because the diagram in 3.4.4 is 
> meant to be a copy of Figure 25 of FC-SP, and indeed it is a 
> faithful copy in respect to the directions of the "Get Policy 
> Summary and Get Policy Objects" arrows.  So, I think you're 
> asking whether FC-SP has the arrows in the correct 
> direction(s), and I think the answer to that question is:  
> the arrows indicate the movement of "data", rather than of 
> "messages".  In other words, a "Get" (with no data) goes in 
> one direction and a Response (typically with data) to the Get 
> goes in the reverse direction,  So, while the messages are 
> bi-directional, the diagram has arrows for the "with data", 
> not for the "without data"
> direction.

Then a few explanatory words near the diagram would help readers like me
who are unaware of the convention. 

> > 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)."
> If I recall correctly, Bert asked me to include "wrongValue", 
> and you're
> correct: I should have done so as an example. I'd prefer to 
> change it to be:
>    'Writing a value of 'correct' or 'stale' to this object is an
>     error (e.g., 'wrongValue')."
> (Note that 'worngValue' is not correct for all versions of SNMP.)

Well, SNMPv3 IS SNMP nowadays, but I would not argue too much as long as
'wrongValue' is indicated as an example only. 

> > T3. Why is not T11FcSpAlphaNumName an SnmpAdminName with the 
> > appropriate size limitation?
> Because section 3.5 of RFC 2579 says:
>                                                            Note that
>    this means that the SYNTAX clause of a Textual Convention can not
>    refer to a previously defined Textual Convention.


> > T4. I do not see storage defined for t11FcSpPoOperTable and no 
> > storageType object either
> Correct.  I don't believe they are not needed because:
> 1. This is a read-write (not read-create) table.
> 2. The two write-able objects in this table are both defined as:
>            When read, the value of this object is always the zero-
>            length string.
> So, new values of these two objects are not persistent even 
> for the time taken for the SetRequest (e.g., much less than 
> across restarts).
> 3. For the two remaining objects in the table, one is defined 
> to have the value 'none' when "activation/de-activation has 
> not been attempted since the last restart of the management 
> system", and the other is defined to be the zero-length 
> string in that situation.


> > E1. Running idnits results in the following references warnings: 
> > 
> > -- Obsolete informational reference (is this intentional?): RFC 2837
> >      (Obsoleted by RFC 4044)
> Yes, it's intentional.  The text reads:
>    The first standardized MIB module for Fibre Channel [RFC2837] was
>    focussed on Fibre Channel Switches.  It was obsoleted by the more
>    generic Fibre Channel Management MIB [RFC4044] which defines basic
>    information for Fibre Channel Nodes and Switches, including ...


> >   -- No information found for draft-ietf-ipsp-ikeaction-mib-nn - is 
> > the name
> >      correct?
> >   -- No information found for 
> draft-ietf-ipsp-ipsecaction-mib-nn - is 
> > the
> >      name correct?
> The names are correct because their numbers have been replaced by "nn"
> so as to implictly refer to the most recent versions.  It was 
> hoped that these two documents would have progressed in 
> advance of the FC-SP MIB, but it looks like FC-SP MIB is 
> about to overtake them.  The current text which references them is:
>    The management of certificates, Certification Authorities and
>    Certificate Revocation Lists is the same in Fibre Channel 
> networks as
>    it is in other networks.  Therefore, this document does not define
>    any MIB objects for such management.  Instead, this 
> document assumes
>    that appropriate MIB objects are defined elsewhere, e.g., in [IPSP-
> I don't know of alternate references, and it seems to me 
> better to include them here rather than not to have any 
> references.  What would you suggest ??

Just replace nn with 02 which is the latest version of the ipsp MIB
documents to make idnits happy. I am not too optimistic about their
fate, but I agree that a reader should be able to find out in the future
what were the assumptions that were made at the time the documents were

> > E2. Please expand the following acronyms at first occurrence: HBA, 
> HBA - yes, I can expand HBA.
> ESP - its first use, as an acronym, is already expanded -- 
> when used as
>       "ESP_Header" it is the name of a mechanism, i.e., not 
> an acronym.
> SAID - is the name of a field in a PDU, i.e., not an acronym.


> > E3. Delete the comment on the SYNTAX line of the T11FcSpPrecedence 
> > definition
> My preference would be to delete the range *and* the comment 
> because I think the range by itself is misleading.  That is, 
> when I read a syntax with an explicit range, my instinctive 
> reaction is that a range other than the default is being 
> specified, which is untrue in this case (because the default 
> range is being used).  However, Bert insisted that the range 
> be included, and therefore to mitigate the risk of confusion, 
> I believe that:  if the range is necessary, then so is the comment.
> However, I will remove the exclamation marks if you wish.


> > 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.
> Correct.  David has provided the instructions to the RFC 
> Editor for these numbers in previous docuemnts done by this WG.

David's mail clarifies these. 

> Keith.
imss mailing list