AD review of: draft-ietf-imss-fc-fspf-mib-01.txt

Hi,

I didn't see any response to my message below.  So, I
propose to
pick one of the solutions below and ask for objections. 
Specifically,
I will remove the definition of t11FspfARegionNum from the 
T11-FC-FSPF-MIB unless I hear objections.  I plan to submit
the
updated I-D at the beginning of next week when (I think) I-D
submission
re-opens.

Thanks,
Keith.
--------------
Forwarded message:
> From: Keith McCloghrie <kzm>
> Message-Id: <200603071543.HAA21489cisco.com>
> Subject: Re: AD review of:
draft-ietf-imss-fc-fspf-mib-01.txt
> To: kzmcisco.com (Keith McCloghrie)
> Date: Tue, 7 Mar 2006 07:43:15 -0800 (PST)
> Cc: bwijnenlucent.com, Black_Davidemc.com,
cdscisco.com, vgaonkarcisco.com,
>         kzmcisco.com, silvanoip6.com, dromascaavaya.com, imssietf.org
> 
> > > looks good. I would be OK with doing IETF
Last Call and consider these
> > > comments as initial IETF Last Call comments.
At the other hand, IETF
> > > LC right before/during an IETF will not get
many people to pay
> > > attention to this. Maybe you rather do a new
rev first?
> >  
> > I'll do a new rev first, but it won't now get
posted until after the IETF.
> 
> In starting to do the edits, I have found one other
thing which it
> might be appropriate to change at this time.
> 
> The present MIB, draft-ietf-imss-fc-fspf-mib-01.txt,
defines the
> object:
> 
>   t11FspfARegionNum OBJECT-TYPE
>       SYNTAX      T11FspfARegionNum
>       MAX-ACCESS  read-write
>       STATUS      current
>       DESCRIPTION
>              "The AR number of this switch in
this Fabric."
>       REFERENCE  "Fibre Channel - Switch Fabric -
4 (FC-SW-4), Rev 7.5,
>                  May 2005, section D.3.1."
>       DEFVAL     
>       ::= { t11FspfEntry 2 }
> 
> I was starting to update the REFERENCE clauses to refer
to the latest
> rev of FC-SW-4, but in doing so I find that
Annex/section D.3.1 is
> missing.  In fact, the whole of what was Annex D has
been removed from
> the latest revision (rev 7.7 of December 2005).  I knew
that T11 was
> deprecating the concept of an
"FSPF-Backbone" which was defined as:
> 
>     The FSPF-Backbone Fabric consists of multiple
Autonomous Regions
>     (AR) that are interconnected by a backbone network.
> 
> What I didn't realise was that it would disappear from
the FC-SW-4
> specification so soon.
> 
> Without that Annex, the definition of t11FspfARegionNum
no longer
> makes any sense.
> 
> So, the question is:
> 
> - should the T11-FC-FSPF-MIB retain the definition of
t11FspfARegionNum,
>   and do so by referring to an out-of-date T11
specification, or,
> 
> - should the definition of t11FspfARegionNum be removed
from the
>   T11-FC-FSPF-MIB at this time ??
> 
> (Note that the edits that would be needed to remove it
are obvious and
> straight-forward, e.g., the T11FspfARegionNum TC which
is only used by
> t11FspfARegionNum would be deleted; t11FspfARegionNum
would deleted
> from both the MODULE-COMPLIANCE clause and from the
t11FspfGeneralGroup
> group.)
> 
> Keith.
> 

_______________________________________________
imss mailing list
imssietf.org
https://w
ww1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/imss

AD review of: draft-ietf-imss-fc-fspf-mib-01.txt

Thread: AD review of: draft-ietf-imss-fc-fspf-mib-01.txt