Skip to main content

Management Information Base for Virtual Machines Controlled by a Hypervisor
draft-ietf-opsawg-vmm-mib-04

Yes

(Joel Jaeggli)

No Objection

(Alia Atlas)
(Alvaro Retana)
(Barry Leiba)
(Brian Haberman)
(Deborah Brungard)
(Jari Arkko)
(Martin Stiemerling)
(Spencer Dawkins)

Note: This ballot was opened for revision 03 and is now closed.

Joel Jaeggli Former IESG member
Yes
Yes (for -03) Unknown

                            
Alia Atlas Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection (for -03) Unknown

                            
Alvaro Retana Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection (for -03) Unknown

                            
Barry Leiba Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection (for -03) Unknown

                            
Ben Campbell Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection (2015-06-25 for -03) Unknown
I mean the following as a question, because it's something I've never thought about, but seems odd: Is it normal to have 2119 language in the description fields in a MIB definition? Who is that language intended for?

[Edit: I am told that this is okay. So be it.]

-- 6.1, vm-mib "description" field:

Do you expect the sentence about 'yyy' being temporary to be removed by the RFC Editor? If so, you probably want a note to that effect.

-- VirtualMachineList description: "... set of eight virtual machine vmIndex..."

Should vmIndex be plural?

-- 8, 1st paragraph:

"noticeable number of notifications"

Is "noticeable" the word you intended? It seems like any number of notifications might be noticeable--that's the point of notifications. Also, this sentence seems out of place (the next sentence seams to draw a conclusion from the sentence prior to this one.)

"... It is recommended that attention be given to these objects ...

I'm not sure what it means to give attention to the objects. Identifying who or what needs to give attention might help. (consider  active voice)

-- paragraph 5: "It is recommended that the implementers consider the security
   features as provided by the SNMPv3 framework."

Do you mean "use the ... features" or "consider using the ... features"?
Benoît Claise Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection (2015-06-25 for -03) Unknown
- Idnit complains:

 == Using lowercase 'not' together with uppercase 'MUST', 'SHALL', 'SHOULD',
     or 'RECOMMENDED' is not an accepted usage according to RFC 2119.  Please
     use uppercase 'NOT' together with RFC 2119 keywords (if that is what you
     mean).
     
     Found 'SHOULD not' in this paragraph:
     
     vmHvSoftware OBJECT-TYPE SYNTAX       SnmpAdminString (SIZE
     (0..255)) MAX-ACCESS   read-only STATUS       current DESCRIPTION "A
     textual description of the hypervisor software.  This value SHOULD not
     include its version as it SHOULD be included in `vmHvVersion'." ::= {
     vmHypervisor 1 }

- EDITORIAL: there is something wrong with all single quote occurrences. Ex: `virtio'

- If you ever post a new version, in order to ease IANA job, change:
OLD:
         vmMIB                     { mib-2 TBD }
         IANAStorageMediaTypeMIB   { mib-2 TBD }


NEW:
         vmMIB                     { mib-2 yyy }
         IANAStorageMediaTypeMIB   { mib-2 zzz }
Brian Haberman Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection (for -03) Unknown

                            
Deborah Brungard Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection (for -03) Unknown

                            
Jari Arkko Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection (for -03) Unknown

                            
Kathleen Moriarty Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection (2015-06-22 for -03) Unknown
I found the SecDir review to be interesting, raising a point of clarification specific to this draft and not the agreed boilerplate text.  Since there was confusion by the reader as to the access possibilities and where this mib is used, I think it's worth adding a sentence with the clarifying point from the discussion.  How about:

This MIB module is typically implemented on the hypervisor not inside a virtual machine.  Virtual machines, possibly under other administrative domains, would not have access to this mib as the SNMP service would typically operate in a separate management network.

https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/secdir/current/msg05705.html 
https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/secdir/current/msg05706.html

The suggested text, or something similar might fit into the introduction to limit the scope or after paragraph 2 in Section 3.
Martin Stiemerling Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection (for -03) Unknown

                            
Spencer Dawkins Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection (for -03) Unknown