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

"Romascanu, Dan (Dan)" <dromasca@avaya.com> Wed, 11 June 2008 16:04 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 [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D21BC3A6886; Wed, 11 Jun 2008 09:04:20 -0700 (PDT)
X-Original-To: imss@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: imss@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 08C313A6879 for <imss@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 11 Jun 2008 09:04:20 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.626
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.626 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.027, BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id HRIAI8uDCTux for <imss@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 11 Jun 2008 09:04:18 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from co300216-co-outbound.avaya.com (co300216-co-outbound.net.avaya.com [198.152.13.100]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AE3613A6886 for <imss@ietf.org>; 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 co300216-co-erhwest.avaya.com) ([198.152.7.5]) by co300216-co-outbound.avaya.com 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 307622ANEX5.global.avaya.com) ([135.64.140.14]) by co300216-co-erhwest-out.avaya.com 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: <EDC652A26FB23C4EB6384A4584434A04CE3BF8@307622ANEX5.global.avaya.com>
In-Reply-To: <200806061445.HAA25946@cisco.com>
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
Thread-Topic: [imss] AD Review for draft-ietf-imss-fc-fcsp-mib-02.txt
Thread-Index: AcjH5HfOdl57ixv9Qk+TsJ6vvifm3QD9pn3Q
References: <no.id> from "Romascanu, Dan (Dan)" at Jun 05, 2008 04:50:31 PM <200806061445.HAA25946@cisco.com>
From: "Romascanu, Dan (Dan)" <dromasca@avaya.com>
To: "Keith McCloghrie" <kzm@cisco.com>
Cc: imss@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [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

Thanks for the answer - see in-line. 

Regards,

Dan
 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Keith McCloghrie [mailto:kzm@cisco.com] 
> Sent: Friday, June 06, 2008 5:46 PM
> To: Romascanu, Dan (Dan)
> Cc: imss@ietf.org
> 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.

OK. 

> 
> > 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.

OK. 

>  
> > 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 ...

OK

> 
> >   -- 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-
>    IPSEC-ACTION] and [IPSP-IKE-ACTION].
> 
> 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
written. 

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

OK

> 
> > 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.

OK

> 
> > 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
imss@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/imss