[Ips] MIB Doctor review: draft-ietf-ips-fcip-mib-07.txt
"Wijnen, Bert (Bert)" <bwijnen@lucent.com> Wed, 20 April 2005 10:43 UTC
Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1DOCg8-0001U9-IX; Wed, 20 Apr 2005 06:43:32 -0400
Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1DOCg7-0001Tx-3n for ips@megatron.ietf.org; Wed, 20 Apr 2005 06:43:31 -0400
Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id GAA25034 for <ips@ietf.org>; Wed, 20 Apr 2005 06:43:28 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from ihemail1.lucent.com ([192.11.222.161]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1DOCrJ-0005zW-MS for ips@ietf.org; Wed, 20 Apr 2005 06:55:06 -0400
Received: from nl0006exch001h.wins.lucent.com (h135-85-76-62.lucent.com [135.85.76.62]) by ihemail1.lucent.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id j3KAhJsr019804 for <ips@ietf.org>; Wed, 20 Apr 2005 05:43:20 -0500 (CDT)
Received: by nl0006exch001h.nl.lucent.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2657.72) id <26JFPLRQ>; Wed, 20 Apr 2005 12:43:18 +0200
Message-ID: <7D5D48D2CAA3D84C813F5B154F43B15506AD76F2@nl0006exch001u.nl.lucent.com>
From: "Wijnen, Bert (Bert)" <bwijnen@lucent.com>
To: "'ravin@lightsand.com'" <ravin@lightsand.com>
Date: Wed, 20 Apr 2005 12:43:18 +0200
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2657.72)
Content-Type: text/plain
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: 2bf730a014b318fd3efd65b39b48818c
Cc: "Ipswg (E-mail)" <ips@ietf.org>
Subject: [Ips] MIB Doctor review: draft-ietf-ips-fcip-mib-07.txt
X-BeenThere: ips@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: IP Storage <ips.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ips>, <mailto:ips-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:ips@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ips-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ips>, <mailto:ips-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Sender: ips-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: ips-bounces@ietf.org
I have done a MIB-Doctor review of this draft. Below are my comments. Some are serious, some are mor nits/admin-related. But it would be good to address them and to spin a new rev. Pls do so quickly. Since my last review (rev 5, early Nov 2004) 5 months have gone by. Pls consider the MIB Review Guidelines as per (now approved as BCP) http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-ops-mib-review-guidelines-04.txt See also guidelines for security considerations at http://www.ops.ietf.org/mib-security.html The revision 7 does compile clean. But... some of it is just minor admin things, but quite a few are serious. - Top of page 4 Each FCIP Entity managed by this MIB is referred to as a FCIP Instance. The MIB is broken up as follows: I would change both "MIB" occurences into "MIB module". - Section 4 should probably have a statement that it be removed by the RFC-Editor before publication as RFC. - This statement ::= { mib-2 8889 } -- TO BE ASSIGNED by IANA is NOT ALLOWED. One must do a ::= { mib-2 nnn } -- nnnn TO BE ASSIGNED by IANA - The MODULE DESCRIPTION clause states: DESCRIPTION "The module defines management information specific to FCIP devices." So it is missing the mandatory COPYRIGHT statement. It should read: DESCRIPTION "The module defines management information specific to FCIP devices. Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2005). This version of this MIB module is part of RFC xxxx; see the RFC itself for full legal notices." - The REVISION description says: DESCRIPTION "Initial version of the FCIP MIB module." It would be much better to say: DESCRIPTION "Initial version of the FCIP MIB module, published as RFC xxxx." - The two Textual Conventions are named: FcDomainId and FcEntityMode. I would prefer them to be named fcipDomainId and FcipEntityMode so that we have a more consistent naming convention within the MIB module itself and less risk for future name clashes in other MIB modules. I can see it is kind of consistent with the FcXxx TCs they import from FC-MGMT-MIB, but that fact also explains why there is a potential risk for future name clashes. Oh well, I guess this is what they have chosen. So... - In the FcDomainId TC they talk about FC entity while they talk about FCIP entity in FcEntityMode TC. Is that intentional or just inconsistent? - I see (in FcDomainIdOrZero ::= TEXTUAL-CONVENTION STATUS current DESCRIPTION "The Domain Id (of a FC swit has been assigned." SYNTAX Integer32 (0..239) While the FcDomainId in this MIB document is: SYNTAX OCTET STRING (SIZE(1)) That is pretty inconsistent between the two MIB modules. This sort of proves my previous point about inconsistencies and/or name clashes right away. - In the DESCRIPTION clause of the read-write object fcipDynIpConfType I would like to see a statement about expected persistency behaviour. In other words, what happens on a restart? - On page 10 I see: REFERENCE "IETF IPS Working Group - draft-ietf-ips-fcovertcpip-12.txt" That makes that internet-draft normative (I think). Just so you know. - I see: fcipEntityId OBJECT-TYPE SYNTAX OCTET STRING (SIZE(8)) MAX-ACCESS not-accessible STATUS current DESCRIPTION "The FCIP entity identifier." REFERENCE "IETF IPS Working Group - draft-ietf-ips-fcovertcpip-12.txt" ::= { fcipEntityInstanceEntry 1 } I think it would be good to add a few words to the description clause to explain what the format of such an FCIP entity identifier look like. In fact, maybe it should be a Textual Convention too. - fcipEntityAddress The decription clasue should state that the format of this object is determined by the value of fcipEntityAddressType, as explained in the RFC4001 in the TC DESCRIPTION for the InetAddress TC. Same for fcipLinkLocalFcipEntityAddress and fcipLinkRemFcipEntityAddress maybe others? - Description clause of fcipEntityStatus MUST describe which columns can or cannor be changed if the row in in active state. Same for fcipLinkStatus... maybe others - I am finding various DESCRIPTION clauses pretty meager, for example fcipLinkCost. fcipLinkLocalFcipEntityMode - I find it strange that fcipEntityId is of SYNTAX OCTET STRING (SIZE(8)) while fcipLinkRemFcipEntityId as a SYNTAX Unsigned32 - I cannot find any details of the persistency behaviour for fcipLinkTable !!?? same for fcipStaticRouteTable... and may be others? same for read-write column in fcipDiscoveryDomainTable - Table fcipLinkErrorsTable contains a lot of Counter32 columns. Each of the DESCRIPTION clauses is supposed to describe if there can be discontinuity situations, and if so, which timer is to be used to detect that. - I think the Security COnsiderations section is weak. It lists sensitive objects, but it does not describe much about why they are sensitive and what kind of damage can happen if improperly changed. The security guidelines on www.ops.ietf.org explains how it should be done in an acceptable manenr - I do not see a IANA COnsiderations section, which is mandatory, and specifically so because a MIB OID needs to be assigned. - $ idnits draft-ietf-ips-fcip-mib-07.txt idnits 1.58 draft-ietf-ips-fcip-mib-07.txt: Checking nits according to http://www.ietf.org/ID-Checklist.html : * The document seems to lack an IANA Considerations section. - !! Bad reference -- !MISSING.] P031 L019: [RFC2012} McCloghrie, K., "SNMPv2 MIB for the Transmission Control !! Missing Reference for citation: [RFC2012] P005 L019: Objects relevant to TCP must be obtained from this group [RFC2012]. That is cause by a accolade instead of a square bracket in the reference sect. Also... RFC2012 has now been obsolted by RFC4022. That is what happens if there are long periods between my comments and a ready for re-review. - !! Missing Reference for citation: [FC-MGMT-MIB] P005 L036: be a regular FC interface. As stated in [FC-MGMT-MIB], a regular That reference is indeed missing. Or maybe it intends to point to this: [FCMGMT] McCloghrie, K., "Fibre Channel Management MIB", <draft-ietf-ips-fcmgmt-mib-04.txt>, February 2003. Then the citation should be changed to 'FCMGMT] And the cirrent revivion of the fcmgmt-mib is revision 6 as in the RFC-Ed queue. - A NORMATIVE reference is needed for every document from which an IMPORT is done. So that means we are missing normative references (and citations somehwere in the text) to: INET-ADDRESS-MIB ... RFC4022 Oh well.... Bert _______________________________________________ Ips mailing list Ips@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ips
- [Ips] MIB Doctor review: draft-ietf-ips-fcip-mib-… Wijnen, Bert (Bert)
- RE: [Ips] MIB Doctor review: draft-ietf-ips-fcip-… Wijnen, Bert (Bert)
- RE: [Ips] MIB Doctor review: draft-ietf-ips-fcip-… Robert Snively
- RE: [Ips] MIB Doctor review: draft-ietf-ips-fcip-… Wijnen, Bert (Bert)
- Re: [Ips] MIB Doctor review: draft-ietf-ips-fcip-… Allison Mankin
- RE: [Ips] MIB Doctor review: draft-ietf-ips-fcip-… Wijnen, Bert (Bert)
- RE: [Ips] MIB Doctor review: draft-ietf-ips-fcip-… Bernard Aboba
- RE: [Ips] MIB Doctor review: draft-ietf-ips-fcip-… Wijnen, Bert (Bert)
- RE: [Ips] MIB Doctor review: draft-ietf-ips-fcip-… pat_thaler
- RE: [Ips] MIB Doctor review: draft-ietf-ips-fcip-… pat_thaler