Fibre Channel Fabric Address Manager MIB
draft-ietf-imss-fc-fam-mib-03

From David Black:

PROTO writeup:
                Fibre Channel Fabric Address Manager MIB
                  draft-ietf-imss-fc-fam-mib-01.txt

David L. Black (acting IMSS WG chair)
------------------------------------------------------------------------

  1.a) Have the chairs personally reviewed this version of the Internet
        Draft (ID), and in particular, do they believe this ID is ready
        to forward to the IESG for publication?

Yes.

  1.b) Has the document had adequate review from both key WG members
        and key non-WG members?

Yes.  This document has been reviewed by Fibre Channel experts in
Technical Committee T11 (Fibre Channel standards organization)
in addition to members of the IMSS WG, and the IMSS WG's MIB expert.

        Do you have any concerns about the
        depth or breadth of the reviews that have been performed?

No.

  1.c) Do you have concerns that the document needs more review from a
        particular (broader) perspective (e.g., security, operational
        complexity, someone familiar with AAA, etc.)?

Needs the usual IETF OPS Area MIB Doctor review.

  1.d) Do you have any specific concerns/issues with this document that
        you believe the ADs and/or IESG should be aware of?  For
        example, perhaps you are uncomfortable with certain parts of the
        document, or have concerns whether there really is a need for
        it.  In any event, if your issues have been discussed in the WG
        and the WG has indicated it that it still wishes to advance the
        document, detail those concerns in the write-up.

No.

  1.e) How solid is the WG consensus behind this document? Does it
        represent the strong concurrence of a few individuals, with
        others being silent, or does the WG as a whole understand and
        agree with it?

It's hard to distinguish the two cases due to somewhat thin WG membership.
There is solid support for this document both in the WG and from T11.

  1.f) Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme
        discontent?  If so, please summarise the areas of conflict in
        separate email to the Responsible Area Director.

No, but this is as good a place as any to say that an expedited
publication request for this document may be forthcoming from T11.

  1.g) Have the chairs verified that the document adheres to all of the
        ID nits? (see http://www.ietf.org/ID-Checklist.html).

Henrik's (really useful) checker says everything is ok.

  1.h) Is the document split into normative and informative references?
        Are there normative references to IDs, where the IDs are not
        also ready for advancement or are otherwise in an unclear state?
        (note here that the RFC editor will not publish an RFC with
        normative references to IDs, it will delay publication until all
        such IDs are also ready for publication as RFCs.)

Yes.  There are no normative references to Internet-Drafts.

  1.i) For Standards Track and BCP documents, the IESG approval
        announcement includes a write-up section with the following
        sections:

        *    Technical Summary

        *    Working Group Summary

        *    Protocol Quality

  1.j) Please provide such a write-up.  Recent examples can be found in
        the "protocol action" announcements for approved documents.

-- Technical Summary

  This memo defines a portion of the Management Information Base (MIB)
  for use with network management protocols in the Internet community.
  In particular, it describes managed objects for information related
  to a Fibre Channel network's Fabric Address Manager.  Fabric Address
  Manager refers to the functionality of acquiring DomainID(s) as
  specified in [FC-SW-3], and managing Fibre Channel Identifiers as
  specified in [FC-FS].

--  Working Group Summary

  This document was reviewed in the IMSS WG and in Technical Committee
  T11 (the official Fibre Channel standards body).  T11 voted to
  recommend a prior version of this document to the IETF.

-- Protocol Quality

  The protocol has been reviewed for the imss WG by Keith McCloghrie.
  An approval announcement will need to credit a MIB Doctor as having
  reviewed this for the IESG as Keith is both an author of this draft
  and the imss WG's MIB expert.

State Change Notice email list have been change to Black_David@emc.com; cds@cisco.com; vgaonkar@cisco.com; kzm@cisco.com; sgai@cisco.com; orly_n@rad.com from Elizabeth.Rodriguez@DotHill.com; Black_David@emc.com; cds@cisco.com; vgaonkar@cisco.com; kzm@cisco.com; sgai@cisco.com; orly_n@rad.com

MIB doctor review posted to WG list (see below).

Acting Chair (David Black) suggests a new revision makes sense.

-----Original Message-----
From: imss-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:imss-bounces@ietf.org]On Behalf Of
Wijnen, Bert (Bert)
Sent: Thursday, October 06, 2005 18:02
To: Imss (E-mail)
Cc: Orly Nicklass (E-mail)
Subject: [imss] FW: MIB Doctor review draft-ietf-imss-fc-fam-mib-01.txt


WG,
here is the MIB doctor review.

Thanks to Orly for her review!

Pls copy her if you want her to see comments/questions/answers
because she is not subscribed to your mailing list.

W.r.t. to the comment on th eexpired draft: it has been (or
will be soon) resurrected by the secretariat!

Bert

-----Original Message-----
From: Orly Nicklass [mailto:orly_n@rad.com]
Sent: Thursday, October 06, 2005 13:52
To: Wijnen, Bert (Bert); Black_David@emc.com
Cc: kzm@cisco.com; cds@cisco.com
Subject: RE: MIB Doctor review draft-ietf-imss-fc-fam-mib-01.txt


Hi,

The draft has expired, and has been deleted from the Internet-Drafts
directory.

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Here are 9  issues I found as potential items for fix:

1.)Format---line(738) is too long

2)  Conformance with RFC 3978/3979 boilerplate---
      -Seems as if an old copy of those is  being used in the  "Status
of this Memo".

Should be as follows:

Status of this Memo

  By submitting this Internet-Draft, each author represents that any
  applicable patent or other IPR claims of which he or she is aware
  have been or will be disclosed, and any of which he or she becomes
  aware will be disclosed, in accordance with Section 6 of BCP 79.

  Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
  Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups.  Note that
  other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-
  Drafts.

  Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
  and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
  time.  It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
  material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."

  The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at
  http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt.

  The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at
  http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html.

  This Internet-Draft will expire on January 13, 2006.

Copyright Notice

  Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2005).

3)      IPR related ---
        -Disclaimer of validity (15),  copyright statements (14) and IPR
(7) are marked with numbers and
          listed in mixed order.
        - section 7 is redundant to 15 and seems as older version
Should be as follows:

Intellectual Property Statement

  The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any
  Intellectual Property Rights or other rights that might be claimed to
  pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in
  this document or the extent to which any license under such rights
  might or might not be available; nor does it represent that it has
  made any independent effort to identify any such rights.  Information
  on the procedures with respect to rights in RFC documents can be
  found in BCP 78 and BCP 79.

  Copies of IPR disclosures made to the IETF Secretariat and any
  assurances of licenses to be made available, or the result of an
  attempt made to obtain a general license or permission for the use of
  such proprietary rights by implementers or users of this
  specification can be obtained from the IETF on-line IPR repository at
  http://www.ietf.org/ipr.

  The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any
  copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary
  rights that may cover technology that may be required to implement
  this standard.  Please address the information to the IETF at
  ietf-ipr@ietf.org.


Disclaimer of Validity

  This document and the information contained herein are provided on an
  "AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE REPRESENTS
  OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET
  ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED,
  INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE
  INFORMATION HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED
  WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.


Copyright Statement

  Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2005).  This document is subject
  to the rights, licenses and restrictions contained in BCP 78, and
  except as set forth therein, the authors retain all their rights.


Acknowledgment

  Funding for the RFC Editor function is currently provided by the
  Internet Society.


4.) Abstract -- ok

5.) MIB Boilerplate -- ok

6.) References --
[FC-MGMT] draft-ietf-ips-fcmgmt-mib is RFC4044 by now "Fibre Channel
Management MIB" 
RFC2837,  was obsoleted by RFC4044, do we really need it?

7.) Security Considerations--ok

8.) Introduction--some redundancy exit with the abstract, maybe
combination with section 3.  "Short Overview of Fibre Channel"
    could have helped.

9.) MIB objects--
--there are few TCs in T11-FC-FABRIC-ADDR-MGR-MIB, why T11FabricIndex
was placed in a separate MODULE and all others not with it ?
  Also, based on its description it seems as the range should be
(1..4095) , maybe there should be a word stating the consistency with
[FC-SW-4]
regarding the value 0.
  Maybe there are good reasons for the above that I simply not aware of.
--T11FamState description could be easier to follow if the order of the
values-explanation  was as the order in the enumeration

--line:260:  element #18 `t11FamPrincipalSwitchSelections' does not
match order of
  columnar objects under `t11FamEntry',
't11FamLocalPrincipalSwitchSlctns' is listed as #18 and affect the rest
that follow it.
  Better have the right order as the `t11FamEntry' listed and the
corresponding OBJECT -GROUP

--MIB layout is not as usually recommended:
        +-- xxxNotifications(0)
        +-- xxxObjects(1)
        +-- xxxConformance(2)

It is recommended to change
t11FamNotifications  OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::= { t11FamMIBObjects 0 }

TO:
t11FamNotifications  OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::= { t11FabricAddrMgrMIB 0 }

END of Review
Orly


-----Original Message-----
From: Wijnen, Bert (Bert) [mailto:bwijnen@lucent.com]
Sent: Sunday, September 25, 2005 23:13
To: David Black (E-mail)
Cc: Orly Nicklass
Subject: RE: MIB Doctor review draft-ietf-imss-fc-fam-mib-01.txt

David,

Orly has agreed to do MIB doctor review for this MIB module within the
next week or two.

Orly, pls send comments to WG mailing list, copy authors and myself.

Thanks,
Bert

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