[imss] imss WG Last Call: FC-SP MIB

This is to announce an imss WG Last Call on the following
MIB draft:

            MIB for Fibre-Channel Security Protocols (FC-SP)
                   draft-ietf-imss-fc-fcsp-mib-00.txt

This WG Last Call will run through 12 midnight Eastern Time on
Friday, October 26, 2007 (your WG chair hopes to deal with
Last Call results during the week of October 29th and hopes
that any revisions can be completed prior to the November
19th Internet Draft submission cutoff for the Vancouver meeting).

Technical comments *must* be sent to the imss mailing list.
Editorial comments may be sent directly to the draft editor
(but please cc: me):

		Keith McCloghrie [kzm@cisco.com]

In order to try to set a good example, I have completed my
WG chair review of the MIB prior to announcing this Last Call.

I found two technical concerns:
(1) The MIB defines precedence values for traffic selectors
	as opposed to implicitly presenting them in order of
	precedence.  I guess this is ok, but Section 4.7 should
	explain why this approach was chosen.
(2) Section 4.9 defines rate control for Authentication
	failures on a per-fabric granularity.  That strikes
	me as overly coarse, and I wonder if per-SA would
	be a more appropriate/useful granularity.

I also found a number of editorial concerns:

Section 1, 2nd paragraph.  Remove the sentence starting
with "This latest draft" or insert an instruction to the
RFC Editor to remove it before publication as an RFC.

Section 3.1 - Delete "The" at the start of the first paragraph.

Should Section 3.5 and subsequent subsections of Section 3
all be subsections of Section 3.4 Security?

Section 3.10 - "To provide better scaling, the Switch Connectivity
   Objects are not Fabric-wide information such that they are
   distributed only to where they are needed."

"information such that they are" -> information, but are"

Section 3.10 introduces "Active Zone Set" but does not explain
what this term means.

T11FcSpPolicyNameType - the DESCRIPTION needs to explain the
concept of "restricted" - how does a "restricted" entity
differ from the corresponding unrestricted entity?

Thanks,
--David
----------------------------------------------------
David L. Black, Senior Technologist
EMC Corporation, 176 South St., Hopkinton, MA  01748
+1 (508) 293-7953             FAX: +1 (508) 293-7786
black_david@emc.com        Mobile: +1 (978) 394-7754
----------------------------------------------------

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