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
- [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)