Subject: Re: [imss] MIB doctor review for T11-FC-SP-ZONING-MIB

From: Keith McCloghrie <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 4 Jan 2008 08:17:41 -0800 (PST)

Bert,

I believe that with my responses below, I have now responded to all of
the comments that you have sent for this I-D.  Further, especially
given the number and size of the MIB modules, we thank you for
expending the large amount of effort needed to provide all the
comments.

> This is a review of the module as extracted from the
> prelimenary draft-ietf-imss-fc-fcsp-mib-01.txt document
> 
> - I see:
> 
>    t11FcSpZoningMIB  MODULE-IDENTITY
>       LAST-UPDATED  "200702190000Z"
>       ORGANIZATION  "T11"
> 
>    I think that IETF IMSS WG should be included as one of
>    the ORGANIZATIONs that worked on this MIB module
 
Done.

> - I have seen
> 
>    t11FcSpZoneSetHashStatus OBJECT-TYPE
>        SYNTAX       INTEGER {
>                      calculate(1),
>                      correct(2),
>                      stale(3)
>                     }
> 
>    That SYNTAX a number of times in the set of MIB modules.
>    Candidate for a TC?

Done.

> - FOr that same object, I wonder how a re-calculate can be done
>   for a permanent row, since the storage type states:
> 
>            If an instance of this object has the value
>            'permanent(4)', the Zone Set database for the given
>            fabric on the given switch is not required to be
>            writeable."

Assuming that I've correctly understood your question, I'll add: 
a sentence in the DESCRIPTION of t11FcSpZoneSetHashStatus to say:

    If and when the corresponding instance of
    t11ZsServerDatabaseStorageType (defined in RFC 4936) has the value
    'permanent(4)', then if any the instance of an object in if any row
    of any table governed by t11ZsServerDatabaseStorageType has an
    object that is writable, then so too must be the corresponding
    instance of this object.

OK?

> - Same question about counter discontinuities as in my earlier 
>   MIB reviews yesterday.

I hope the same answer I gave to them will suffice here also.

Thanks,
Keith.

_______________________________________________
imss mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/imss

---

From: "Bert Wijnen - IETF" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 4 Jan 2008 18:23:15 +0100

Inline

Bert Wijnen 

> -----Oorspronkelijk bericht-----
> Van: Keith McCloghrie [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Verzonden: vrijdag 4 januari 2008 17:18
> Aan: Bert Wijnen - IETF
> CC: [email-masked]; Keith McCloghrie; Black_David; Dan Romascanu
> Onderwerp: Re: [imss] MIB doctor review for T11-FC-SP-ZONING-MIB
> 
> 
> Bert,
> 

:if any the instance" ??  do you mean "if any instance" 
"in if any row" ?? maybe remove the last "if" ??

>     object that is writable, then so too must be the corresponding

Not sure I underatand, so you say this one only needs to be writable
if any other wrietable object is writable?
I am confused?

> I hope the same answer I gave to them will suffice here also.
That one is OK with me.
Hope the WG understood/understands the implications and agrees as well.

Bert

---

From: Keith McCloghrie <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 4 Jan 2008 10:00:03 -0800 (PST)

Extracting the one issue out of your response:

> "if any the instance" ??  do you mean "if any instance" 

Sorry for the confusion, let me try again:
 
     If and when the corresponding instance of
     t11ZsServerDatabaseStorageType (defined in RFC 4936) has the value
     'permanent(4)', then if write access is supported to any instance of
     a read-write object in any row of any table governed by the
     'permanent' value of t11ZsServerDatabaseStorageType, then write
     acces to the corresponding instance of this object must also be
     supported.

> if any other wrietable object is writable?

Doubtful -- it's probably that I've interpreted your comment wrongly.
Here's the conclusion that I "jumped" to:

  RFC 2579 says (for StorageType):

            Every usage of this textual convention is required to
            specify the columnar objects which a permanent(4) row must
            at a minimum allow to be writable."

  but t11ZsServerDatabaseStorageType is aleady defined in RFC 4936 and
  we aren't modifying RFC 4936, and so you want the specification of
  "must at a minimum allow to be writable" to be updated in the
  DESCRIPTION of t11FcSpZoneSetHashStatus.
    
  Now, one instance of t11ZsServerDatabaseStorageType covers all the
  associated rows of many tables, including rows in this new table
  which AUGMENTS t11ZsServerEntry.  If t11ZsServerDatabaseStorageType
  is 'permanent', then some of the instances in the identified set of
  rows might be writeable -- if any are, then the Hash value is likely
  to change when such modifying such instances, and so the
  corresponding instance of t11FcSpZoneSetHashStatus needs to be
  writable.  In contrast, if none of the instances of objects in the
  identified set of rows are writable, then that instance of
  t11FcSpZoneSetHashStatus doesn't need to be writable either.

Is that what you meant ??  If so, did I capture it in my proposed
addition to t11FcSpZoneSetHashStatus ?

Keith.

---

From: "Bert Wijnen - IETF" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 4 Jan 2008 19:49:24 +0100

Yes, now we are in agreement

Bert Wijnen

> Verzonden: vrijdag 4 januari 2008 19:00
> Aan: Bert Wijnen - IETF
> CC: Keith McCloghrie; [email-masked]; Black_David; Dan Romascanu