Re: [imss] Acceptance of draft-kzm-imss-fc-fcsp-mib-00.txt as an imss

Keith McCloghrie <kzm@cisco.com> Sat, 07 July 2007 13:48 UTC

Return-path: <imss-bounces@ietf.org>
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1I7AeS-0004gx-9A; Sat, 07 Jul 2007 09:48:44 -0400
Received: from imss by megatron.ietf.org with local (Exim 4.43) id 1I7AeQ-0004gr-Mm for imss-confirm+ok@megatron.ietf.org; Sat, 07 Jul 2007 09:48:42 -0400
Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1I7AeQ-0004gj-Bp for imss@ietf.org; Sat, 07 Jul 2007 09:48:42 -0400
Received: from sj-iport-5.cisco.com ([171.68.10.87]) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1I7AeQ-0008QY-1E for imss@ietf.org; Sat, 07 Jul 2007 09:48:42 -0400
Received: from sj-dkim-3.cisco.com ([171.71.179.195]) by sj-iport-5.cisco.com with ESMTP; 07 Jul 2007 06:48:09 -0700
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AgAAAHY2j0arR7PDh2dsb2JhbACPNQEBCQ4s
X-IronPort-AV: i="4.16,510,1175497200"; d="scan'208"; a="165955618:sNHT26813592"
Received: from sj-core-1.cisco.com (sj-core-1.cisco.com [171.71.177.237]) by sj-dkim-3.cisco.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id l67Dm9Uh007883; Sat, 7 Jul 2007 06:48:09 -0700
Received: from cisco.com (pita.cisco.com [171.71.177.199]) by sj-core-1.cisco.com (8.12.10/8.12.6) with ESMTP id l67Dm4XH005365; Sat, 7 Jul 2007 13:48:08 GMT
Received: (from kzm@localhost) by cisco.com (8.8.8-Cisco List Logging/8.8.8) id GAA27475; Sat, 7 Jul 2007 06:47:03 -0700 (PDT)
From: Keith McCloghrie <kzm@cisco.com>
Message-Id: <200707071347.GAA27475@cisco.com>
Subject: Re: [imss] Acceptance of draft-kzm-imss-fc-fcsp-mib-00.txt as an imss
To: Black_David@emc.com
Date: Sat, 7 Jul 2007 06:47:03 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <no.id> from "Black_David@emc.com" at Jul 05, 2007 08:24:55 PM
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.5 PL5]
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
DKIM-Signature: v=0.5; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; l=2474; t=1183816089; x=1184680089; c=relaxed/simple; s=sjdkim3002; h=Content-Type:From:Subject:Content-Transfer-Encoding:MIME-Version; d=cisco.com; i=kzm@cisco.com; z=From:=20Keith=20McCloghrie=20<kzm@cisco.com> |Subject:=20Re=3A=20[imss]=20Acceptance=20of=20draft-kzm-imss-fc-fcsp-mib -00.txt=20as=20an=20imss |Sender:=20; bh=GRbrP0a5XKUNBD2wMbjQv511Wn1Z2cbhmHjzDqIXY6c=; b=SnwIbCMrOT23fXtVq9xkhGYD5+bSGXOAAa5HbUFl/proxVsr67wIMZNL1GaKavK3/+eRdQzb fxv6PjS/VzpXu4Fr10Ekcxe6yqd8fRH+4Hkm/BNaYUpNfzIy6CBSl3p+;
Authentication-Results: sj-dkim-3; header.From=kzm@cisco.com; dkim=pass (sig from cisco.com/sjdkim3002 verified; );
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: 538aad3a3c4f01d8b6a6477ca4248793
Cc: imss@ietf.org, dromasca@avaya.com
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

David,

The document is certainly larger than normal.  However, I think
that on balance it would be disadvantageous to split the document.
Doing so would make each of multiple documents be "easier to handle"
but at the cost of an increase in the sum total amount of work, e.g.,
N documents incur N times as much IETF-process overhead, and more
time/work to be spent in checking the cross-references between the N
documents.  From a technical point of view, I think the necessary
modularity is already obtained by having six MIB modules, i.e., without
needing any MIB module to be in a separate document.  Having a single
document will also be the most efficient way to review the document,
i.e., one large review, rather than a set of individually-smaller
reviews which incur a larger aggregate of review effort.  So, if WG is
willing and if Dan can find a MIB Doctor to review the work as a single
document, then I think that's the most efficient.

Keith.

> As Keith noted to the list last month, the draft
> draft-kzm-imss-fc-fcsp-mib-00.txt has been posted to
> the Internet-Draft servers.  This contains security
> management MIB modules that have been worked on in T11,
> and is intended as the starting point for the final
> work item on the imss WG's charter:
> 
> Dec 2007	Submit Fibre Channel Security MIB modules
> 		to IESG for consideration as proposed standard
> 
> In the absence of objection, this draft will be accepted
> as an official imss WG draft during the IETF meeting
> week in Chicago, July 22-27.  Note: the imss WG is not
> meeting in Chicago as my intent is to handle work on
> this draft almost entirely on the mailing list.  There
> will be a meeting in Vancouver if there are technical
> issues to discuss.
> 
> I would like to see comments on acceptance of this draft,
> and particularly on its size.  The draft is nearly
> 250 pages - security is not easy to manage ;-).  It
> contains 6 MIB modules, and so I'm interested in hearing
> whether the draft ought to be split into multiple smaller
> drafts that may be easier to handle.
> 
> Thanks,
> --David (imss WG chair)
> ----------------------------------------------------
> 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