RE: REVIEW: draft-ietf-imss-fc-vf-mib-02.txt

["David B Harrington" <dbharrington@comcast.net>]

Hi Keith,

Yup, I agree with your comments. 

> Agreed, and because it is appropriate to list RFC3410 as
Informative,
> it is also appropriate to use SNMP as an example of a remote network
> management protocol for transporting MIB data.  I will refer to this
> point multiple times below.

Agreed, as long as the MIB doesn't create dependencies on SNMP as the
only protocol.
 
> > > Section 5 says 
[...]
> > The second sentence seems totally unnecessary. Implementers need
to
> > know what is in the Mib module, not what is not in the MIB module.
> 
[..]
> 
> If you would prefer, it could be reworded esuch that SNMP is only
used
> as an example, e.g.,
> 
>        This MIB module provides the means for monitoring the 
>        operation of, and configuring some parameters of, one or more

>        instances of Fibre Channel Virtual Fabric functionality. 
>        (Note that there are no definitions in this MIB module of 
>        "managed actions" which can be invoked via a remote network
>        management protocol such as SNMP.)

I'm OK with this wording.

> 
> > > Section 5.1 saya:
[...]
> A similar issue occurs here.  If this text required the use of
AgentX,
> or even required the use of SNMP, then I would agree with you, but
it
> doesn't -- the sentence begins with "For example,".  It is included
to
> make it easier for Fibre Channel experts with little MIB/SNMP 
> expertise
> to understand the document.  What harm does it do ??

I think it biases the proposal to one of many different possible
solutions, which may favor some vendors over others. 
I think it biases the proposal to a solution that is external to SNMP,
even though SNMP has built-in features that could have served as
examples.
But I can live with it.

> 
> > > And
> > >    "The object, fcmInstanceIndex, is IMPORTed from the FC-MGMT-
> > >    MIB [RFC4044] as the index value to uniquely identify each 
> > >    Fibre Channel management instance within the same SNMP 
> > >    context ([RFC3411] section 3.3.1). "
> > 
> [...] 
> That is, the
> document's mistake is to list RFC 3411 as a Normative Reference,
when
> it should be listed as an Informative Reference, and the reference
to
> SNMP contexts should be given only as an example.  Thus, I 
> propose that
> the wording be changed:
> 
>      "The object, fcmInstanceIndex, is IMPORTed from the FC-MGMT-
>      MIB [RFC4044] as the index value to uniquely identify each 
>      Fibre Channel management instance, for example within the
>      same SNMP context ([RFC3411] section 3.3.1)."

That works for me. In fact making it an example resolves my concern
that the wording seemed to imply something special.

> 
> > > "t11vfVirtualSwitchEntry" says 
> > > 	"With the definition and usage of virtual switches,
> > > fcmSwitchTable now applies to virtual switches which (unlike
> > physical
> > > fabrics) are create-able via SNMP."
>  
> I'd like to suggest an alternate wording:
> 
>     	"With the definition and usage of virtual switches,
>     fcmSwitchTable now applies to virtual switches as well as
>     physical switches, and (in constrast to physical switches)
>     it is appropriate to provide the capability for virtual
>     switches to be created via remote management applications,
>     e.g., via SNMP.

I like your wording much better than the original, and better than
mine.

> > Making these changes would eliminate any reference to RFC3411 and
> > RFC2741.
>  
> Why is is necessary to eliminate *Informative* references, 
> which provide
> useful information to those who are not experts ??

I already told Dan I didn't consider the elimination of these
necessary.
> 
> Keith.
> 

Thanks for the fast response.
dbh