Re: Additional FC MIBs proposed
Keith McCloghrie <kzm@cisco.com> Wed, 25 June 2003 17:15 UTC
Return-Path: <owner-ips-outgoing@ece.cmu.edu>
X-Sieve: cmu-sieve 2.0
Return-Path: <owner-ips-outgoing@ece.cmu.edu>
Received: from bache.ece.cmu.edu (BACHE.ECE.CMU.EDU [128.2.129.23]) by ece.cmu.edu (8.11.0/8.10.2) with ESMTP id h5PHFkY07999 for <ipsml@ece.cmu.edu>; Wed, 25 Jun 2003 13:15:46 -0400 (EDT)
Received: by bache.ece.cmu.edu (Postfix, from userid 953) id 24CEDA3; Wed, 25 Jun 2003 13:15:45 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from sos.ece.cmu.edu (SOS.ECE.CMU.EDU [128.2.129.27]) by bache.ece.cmu.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5BE987B; Wed, 25 Jun 2003 13:15:25 -0400 (EDT)
Received: by sos.ece.cmu.edu (Postfix) id 6BE0D89F1; Wed, 25 Jun 2003 13:15:11 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from hazard.ece.cmu.edu (HAZARD.ECE.CMU.EDU [128.2.129.24]) by sos.ece.cmu.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5568689F0 for <ips-outgoing@sos.ece.cmu.edu>; Wed, 25 Jun 2003 13:15:11 -0400 (EDT)
Received: by hazard.ece.cmu.edu (Postfix) id 33B2687; Wed, 25 Jun 2003 13:15:11 -0400 (EDT)
Received: by hazard.ece.cmu.edu (Postfix, from userid 953) id 0E7257A; Wed, 25 Jun 2003 13:15:11 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from sos.ece.cmu.edu (SOS.ECE.CMU.EDU [128.2.129.27]) by hazard.ece.cmu.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 270CF87 for <ips-outgoing@ece.cmu.edu>; Wed, 25 Jun 2003 13:15:07 -0400 (EDT)
Received: by sos.ece.cmu.edu (Postfix, from userid 363) id EDB1689F2; Wed, 25 Jun 2003 13:15:06 -0400 (EDT)
X-Original-To: ips@sos.ece.cmu.edu
Received: from hazard.ece.cmu.edu (HAZARD.ECE.CMU.EDU [128.2.129.24]) by sos.ece.cmu.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3478B89F0 for <ips@sos.ece.cmu.edu>; Wed, 25 Jun 2003 13:15:05 -0400 (EDT)
Received: by hazard.ece.cmu.edu (Postfix) id C36DD7A; Wed, 25 Jun 2003 13:15:04 -0400 (EDT)
Delivered-To: ips@ece.cmu.edu
Received: by hazard.ece.cmu.edu (Postfix, from userid 953) id 336FC87; Wed, 25 Jun 2003 13:15:03 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from sj-iport-2.cisco.com (sj-iport-2-in.cisco.com [171.71.176.71]) by hazard.ece.cmu.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id DB2917A for <ips@ece.cmu.edu>; Wed, 25 Jun 2003 13:14:54 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from cisco.com (171.68.223.137) by sj-iport-2.cisco.com with ESMTP; 25 Jun 2003 10:14:22 -0800
Received: from cisco.com (cypher.cisco.com [171.69.11.143]) by sj-core-3.cisco.com (8.12.6/8.12.6) with ESMTP id h5PHEqQx022887; Wed, 25 Jun 2003 10:14:52 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (from kzm@localhost) by cisco.com (8.8.8/2.6/Cisco List Logging/8.8.8) id KAA13767; Wed, 25 Jun 2003 10:14:51 -0700 (PDT)
From: Keith McCloghrie <kzm@cisco.com>
Message-Id: <200306251714.KAA13767@cisco.com>
Subject: Re: Additional FC MIBs proposed
To: pat_thaler@agilent.com
Date: Wed, 25 Jun 2003 10:14:51 -0700
Cc: Black_David@emc.com, ips@ece.cmu.edu
In-Reply-To: <1BEBA5E8600DD4119A50009027AF54A0132E03F3@axcs04.cos.agilent.com> from "pat_thaler@agilent.com" at Jun 23, 2003 05:30:25 PM
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.5 PL1]
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: owner-ips@ece.cmu.edu
Precedence: bulk
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-13.0 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_01,IN_REP_TO,QUOTED_EMAIL_TEXT version=2.50
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.50 (1.173-2003-02-20-exp)
The issue with doing the MIBs in T11 is that T11 has, in the past, not had the appropriate amount of MIB expertise. My understanding is that T11 themselves acknowledged this by the submission of the "Fibre Alliance MIB" as draft-ietf-ipfc-fcmgmt-int-mib. However, as and when the IPFC WG had completed all other items in its charter, it had been unable to reach consensus on that MIB. So, to allow the IPFC WG to conclude, the unfinished work item was moved to the IP Storage WG. After abortive attempts to get changes in draft-ietf-ipfc-fcmgmt-int-mib, I created draft-ietf-ips-fcmgmt-mib as a MIB which: a) meets IETF's standards, b) replaces both draft-ietf-ips-fcmgmt-mib and the overlapping RFC 2837, and c) details the problems with those previous MIBs. Meanwhile, T11 has published on its website a copy of one version (I'm not sure if it's the latest version) of draft-ietf-ips-fcmgmt-mib. Since that MIB is widely implemented in the industry, I agreed that such publication would be appropriate *if* T11's publication indicated that the MIB is already being deprecated by the IETF's definition of draft-ietf-ips-fcmgmt-mib. The last time I looked, T11 had failed to do that; rather, T11 seem to have published draft-ietf-ips-fcmgmt-mib as if it were the definitive standard for a Fibre Channel MIB. (However, the MIB was still in its Internet-Draft format, and perhaps T11 intended that as an indication that the MIB was just a draft, as ephemeral as all Internet-Drafts are, by definition). These recent actions of T11 suggest to me that they still do not have the appropriate amount of MIB expertise. The bottom line is that a bad MIB was widely implemented in the industry, and I believe that network management of Fibre Channel devices suffered because of that. A better MIB for Fibre Channel has been defined in the IP Storage WG, who have already discussed the definition of further FC MIBs (see http://www.pdl.cmu.edu/mailinglists/ips/mail/msg09473.html), but deferred them as future work. Keith. > It doesn't appear that any of these MIBs are in scope for us. They > don't deal with IP storage. They are all very specific to Fibre Channel > and deal mostly with fabric issues. T11 would be more appropriate. > > Pat > > -----Original Message----- > From: Black_David@emc.com [mailto:Black_David@emc.com] > Sent: Monday, June 23, 2003 6:55 AM > To: ips@ece.cmu.edu > Subject: Additional FC MIBs proposed > > > Everyone, > > This Internet-Draft describes a number of MIBs that the authors > would like the IPS WG to take up. The WG chairs are seeking > input on the level interest in standardization and use of these > MIBs, the appropriateness of working on them here (vs. T11) and > prioritization (which ones to take up first, as all 9 in parallel > is not likely). > > Send comments/opinions/etc. to the list or directly to Elizabeth > (ElizabethRodriguez@ieee.org) and myself (black_david@emc.com). > > 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 > ---------------------------------------------------- > > -----Original Message----- > From: Internet-Drafts@ietf.org [mailto:Internet-Drafts@ietf.org] > Sent: Friday, June 20, 2003 2:28 PM > Subject: I-D ACTION:draft-gai-fc-mibs-00.txt > > > A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts > directories. > > > Title : MIBs Standardization for Fibre Channel > Author(s) : S. Gai et al. > Filename : draft-gai-fc-mibs-00.txt > Pages : 9 > Date : 2003-6-20 > > Fibre Channel (FC) is a high speed serial interface technology that > supports several Upper Layer Protocols including Small Computer > System Interface (SCSI) and IP. Fibre Channel is standardized by the > INCITS T11 Technical Committee. Fibre Channel Standards include > Framing and Signaling protocols [FC-FS], Generic Services protocols > [FC-GS-3], Switch Fabric protocols [FC-SW-2], etc. > The management of a Fibre Channel network requires to monitor and set > many parameters related to these protocols and this may be > accomplished defining a proper set of MIBs. > > A URL for this Internet-Draft is: > http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-gai-fc-mibs-00.txt > > To remove yourself from the IETF Announcement list, send a message to > ietf-announce-request with the word unsubscribe in the body of the message. > > Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP. Login with the username > "anonymous" and a password of your e-mail address. After logging in, type > "cd internet-drafts" and then > "get draft-gai-fc-mibs-00.txt". > > A list of Internet-Drafts directories can be found in > http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html > or ftp://ftp.ietf.org/ietf/1shadow-sites.txt > > > Internet-Drafts can also be obtained by e-mail. > > Send a message to: > mailserv@ietf.org. > In the body type: > "FILE /internet-drafts/draft-gai-fc-mibs-00.txt". > > NOTE: The mail server at ietf.org can return the document in > MIME-encoded form by using the "mpack" utility. To use this > feature, insert the command "ENCODING mime" before the "FILE" > command. To decode the response(s), you will need "munpack" or > a MIME-compliant mail reader. Different MIME-compliant mail readers > exhibit different behavior, especially when dealing with > "multipart" MIME messages (i.e. documents which have been split > up into multiple messages), so check your local documentation on > how to manipulate these messages. > > > Below is the data which will enable a MIME compliant mail reader > implementation to automatically retrieve the ASCII version of the > Internet-Draft. >
- Additional FC MIBs proposed Black_David
- Re: Additional FC MIBs proposed Julian Satran
- RE: Additional FC MIBs proposed pat_thaler
- Re: Additional FC MIBs proposed Keith McCloghrie
- Re: Additional FC MIBs proposed Julian Satran
- RE: Additional FC MIBs proposed Black_David
- RE: Additional FC MIBs proposed Roger Cummings
- Re: Additional FC MIBs proposed Bill Strahm
- RE: Additional FC MIBs proposed Mike O'Donnell
- Re: Additional FC MIBs proposed Keith McCloghrie
- RE: Additional FC MIBs proposed Julian Satran
- RE: Additional FC MIBs proposed Julian Satran
- RE: Additional FC MIBs proposed Roger Cummings