[storm] prelim review of draft-ietf-storm-ifcpmib-00.txt
"David Harrington" <ietfdbh@comcast.net> Thu, 04 February 2010 20:13 UTC
Return-Path: <ietfdbh@comcast.net>
X-Original-To: storm@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: storm@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 95C463A68AC for <storm@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 4 Feb 2010 12:13:57 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.000, 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 EPfQ4CRo5L3g for <storm@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 4 Feb 2010 12:13:56 -0800 (PST)
Received: from qmta08.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net (qmta08.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net [76.96.62.80]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A81D53A6CB7 for <storm@ietf.org>; Thu, 4 Feb 2010 12:13:54 -0800 (PST)
Received: from omta07.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net ([76.96.62.59]) by qmta08.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net with comcast id dp3N1d0031GhbT858wEiAk; Thu, 04 Feb 2010 20:14:42 +0000
Received: from Harrington73653 ([24.147.240.98]) by omta07.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net with comcast id dwEi1d00M284sdk3TwEi8q; Thu, 04 Feb 2010 20:14:42 +0000
From: David Harrington <ietfdbh@comcast.net>
To: storm@ietf.org
Date: Thu, 04 Feb 2010 15:14:41 -0500
Message-ID: <02e401caa5d6$af6fbb00$0600a8c0@china.huawei.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 11
Thread-Index: Acql1q4yLvgw9tgYQaundYGxPKxkHw==
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.3198
Subject: [storm] prelim review of draft-ietf-storm-ifcpmib-00.txt
X-BeenThere: storm@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: Storage Maintenance WG <storm.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/storm>, <mailto:storm-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/storm>
List-Post: <mailto:storm@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:storm-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/storm>, <mailto:storm-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 04 Feb 2010 20:13:57 -0000
Hi, I am a MIB Doctor. I have chosen to unofficially review this draft. This is NOT an official MIb Doctor review or a complete review. I am doing this review to advise you about things that may or may not hold up your document in an official MIB Doctor review. Addressing the concerns might make later approval easier. 1) I already posted the idnits output. 2) It is good that the MIB module passes libsmi - a really good sign! 3) 4) BCP 139 (RFC 5249) points to a series of templates for MIB documents, that help to layout documents in a manner that makes it easier for MIB Doctors to do their reviews. The templates can be found at tools.ietf.org. I edited the templates for the MIB Doctors; the templates are now out of date, due to the IETF Trust updates, but most of the information should still be relevant. In some cases, the templates represent exact wording that must be used, such as for the security considerations. Other aspects may not need to be followed closely, but the information will need to be there, and it is easier if it is clearly marked so MIB Doctors can find it. 4) The IETF Management Framework has long held that there should be a separation between the data modeling language (SMI), the data models (MIB modules), and the protocol(s) that can carry the data. Theoretically, SNMP is only one protocol that can carry MIB module information. In practice, SNMP has been the only protocool that did so, so many documents like RFC4369 were not careful about keeping these separate. In recent years, as the IETF has moved away from an attitude of "write a MIB" to do management, and to consider the requirements of the managed technology and operational environment, the IETF has a adopted a multi-protocol approach to management. We now have IETF standards for syslog and Netconf, plus other protocols. As a result, references to SNMP in a MIB module document should be couched as an example protocol that can access the MIB data. It would be a good thing to find any references to SNMP, and reword those to make them examples, so that other protocols could also be used to access the MIB data. The abstract is the first instance I found of this. 5) I recommend rewording the abstract to read more this way: This memo defines a portion of the Management Information Base (MIB) for use with network management protocols. In particular it defines objects to monitor and control iFCP Gateway instances, and their associated sessions. The description in the abstract that discusses iFCP and iFCP gateways can be moved the Introduction or an Overview section. This would be more consistent with BCP 139, and avoid the problem mentioned in 4). 6) There is an xml2rfc template available. Use of xml2rfc will help you avoid issues such as lines that are too long, copyright boilerplate updates, author address sections, etc. So you might pass idnits more easily. This is a significant investment of time if you are not currently using xml2rfc, but it can save you lots of time later, if multiple revisions are required (and multiple revisions are common during the approval process). 7) MIB Doctors tend to be an anal sort, and one point that is often raised is that the MIB module in your document is not a MIB. There is only one MIB and it is made up of many MIB modules. You should change this to avoid having the problem later. For example, 8) "statistics are provided in both standard and low-capacity (counter32) methods." Both Counter64 and Counter32 are standard counters. Change "standard" to "high-capacity". 9) IPsec is spelled IPsec, not IPSec. The security considerations boilerplate was written that way for a reason. 10) The IANA section should read this way: The MIB module in this document uses the following IANA-assigned OBJECT IDENTIFIER values recorded in the SMI Numbers registry: Descriptor OBJECT IDENTIFIER value ---------- ----------------------- sampleMIB { mib-2 XXX } with the sampleMIB and XXX values filled in accordingly. 11) from http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc-editor/instructions2authors.txt 4.1. First-Page Header Please see the front page of this memo for an example of the front page heading. On the first page there is no running header. The top of the first page has the following items left justified: "Network Working Group" This traditional title must be left-justified on the first line of the heading. It denoted the ARPAnet research group that founded the RFC series. The top of the first page is not for the WG name. ***However***, a new guidelines to authors of internet-drafts has just been published, that doesn't mention this. See http://www.ietf.org/id-info/guidelines.html and discuss it with your chairs. 11) The copyright notice in the MODULE-IDENTITY should refer to RFC XXX in which the MIB module appears. There should be a note to the RFC editor to fill in the XXX (or whatever) when the RFC is published. (unless the IETF Trust changed this and I am not up-to-date). 12) I think the description in ifcpLclGtwyInstAddrTransMode OBJECT-TYPE may be problematic. Per RFC2578: As experience is gained with an information module, it may be desirable to revise that information module. However, changes are not allowed if they have any potential to cause interoperability problems "over the wire" between an implementation using an original specification and an implementation using an updated specification(s). While iFCO might declare address translation obsolete, I think you cannot prove that this value will always be (1) in all implementations. I think the correct way to describe this situation os to deprecate the value in the enumeration, in case anybody anywhere has implemented it, and describe that it has been obsoleted by iFCP. Change the "will" to "should" (or SHOULD) Then you write two compliance clauses - one that describes compliance to 4369 and a new compliance clause for this document. I also note that the DEFVAL clause names the obsolete value. ;-) You are using REFERENCE "RFC4172". Is this being updated to make address translation obsolete? If so, you should change the reference. 13) ifcpSessionRmtNpFcidAlias OBJECT-TYPE s/This is obsolete/This object is obsolete/ 14) This is sort of a follow-on to point 12) ifcpGatewayCompliance MODULE-COMPLIANCE probably should be deprecated in case anybody implemented the MIB with the obsolete enumeration value (which may be likely given that it was the DEFVAL) 15) In my experience, naming the compliance clause to match the RFC that defines it has worked fairly well. What will happen if a new update is done, and the new update also has NoTrans ? Most vendors claim compliance to an RFC, so naming your compliance clause by its RFC makes this consistent. Hope this helps, David Harrington dbharrington@comcast.net ietfdbh@comcast.net dharrington@huawei.com
- [storm] prelim review of draft-ietf-storm-ifcpmib… David Harrington