Last Call Review of draft-ietf-storm-iscsimib-03
review-ietf-storm-iscsimib-03-genart-lc-romascanu-2013-01-27-00

Request Review of draft-ietf-storm-iscsimib
Requested revision No specific revision (document currently at 04)
Type Last Call Review
Team General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) (genart)
Deadline 2013-01-28
Requested 2013-01-17
Authors Mark Bakke , Prakash Venkatesen
I-D last updated 2013-01-27
Completed reviews Genart Last Call review of -03 by Dan Romascanu (diff)
Genart Telechat review of -04 by Dan Romascanu
Secdir Last Call review of -03 by Joseph A. Salowey (diff)
Assignment Reviewer Dan Romascanu
State Completed
Request Last Call review on draft-ietf-storm-iscsimib by General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) Assigned
Reviewed revision 03 (document currently at 04)
Result Almost ready
Completed 2013-01-27
review-ietf-storm-iscsimib-03-genart-lc-romascanu-2013-01-27-00
(I missed one of the authors at the first send)

I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. For background on Gen-ART,
please see the FAQ at <

http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/GenArtfaq>.

Please wait for direction from your document shepherd or AD before posting a
new version of the draft.

Document: draft-ietf-storm-iscsimib-03.txt
Reviewer: Dan Romascanu
Review Date: 1/27/13
IETF LC End Date: 1/28/13
IESG Telechat date: (if known)

Summary: Almost Ready

Major issues:

1) This document will obsolete (when approved) RFC 4544, and add support for
iSCSI protocol evolution according to the consolidated version of the iSCSI
protocol (as per draft-ietf-storm-iscsi-cons) and for the updates to iSCSI (as
per draft-ietf-storm-iscsi-sam) for ProtocolLevel. There is no indication
however in for the operators when an upgrade is recommended or becomes
mandatory, and which version of the protocol is to be used during the
transition, function of the iSCSI versions of the protocol.

2) A number of changes where agreed by the WG, as reflected in the message

http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/storm/current/msg00652.html

, according to which:

> In order to move forward, I suggest that the authors make the functional
changes [1] - [6], not make changes [A] - [F] and [I}, and use their best
judgment on what (if anything) to do about [G] and [H]

My understanding is that the changes [1]-[6] were implemented, and the authors
applying their best judgment did not implement [G] and [H]. However, changes
[1]-[6] are npt reflected in Section 5.

3) I did not perform a MIB Doctor review of the document. I notice however that
the text Security Considerations section and the corresponding references do
not conform to the latest version of the guidelines for the Security
Considerations sections in MIB documents, as per

https://svn.tools.ietf.org/area/ops/trac/wiki/mib-security#

Minor issues:

Nits/editorial comments: