From imss-bounces@ietf.org Thu Jul 05 20:25:14 2007 Return-path: Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1I6bdJ-000125-FS; Thu, 05 Jul 2007 20:25:13 -0400 Received: from imss by megatron.ietf.org with local (Exim 4.43) id 1I6bdH-00011i-PJ for imss-confirm+ok@megatron.ietf.org; Thu, 05 Jul 2007 20:25:11 -0400 Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1I6bdH-00011a-F5 for imss@ietf.org; Thu, 05 Jul 2007 20:25:11 -0400 Received: from mexforward.lss.emc.com ([128.222.32.20]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1I6bd9-0001mK-1y for imss@ietf.org; Thu, 05 Jul 2007 20:25:11 -0400 Received: from mailhub.lss.emc.com (nirah.lss.emc.com [10.254.144.13]) by mexforward.lss.emc.com (Switch-3.2.5/Switch-3.1.7) with ESMTP id l660P00E022980; Thu, 5 Jul 2007 20:25:02 -0400 (EDT) Received: from corpussmtp3.corp.emc.com (corpussmtp3.corp.emc.com [10.254.64.53]) by mailhub.lss.emc.com (Switch-3.2.5/Switch-3.1.7) with ESMTP id l660OXt9008939; Thu, 5 Jul 2007 20:24:58 -0400 (EDT) From: Black_David@emc.com Received: from CORPUSMX20A.corp.emc.com ([128.221.62.12]) by corpussmtp3.corp.emc.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Thu, 5 Jul 2007 20:24:56 -0400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Date: Thu, 5 Jul 2007 20:24:55 -0400 Message-ID: X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: Acceptance of draft-kzm-imss-fc-fcsp-mib-00.txt as an imss WG draft Thread-Index: Ace/ZBPzGhtl515DQp2PIl21TnEhnw== To: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 06 Jul 2007 00:24:56.0005 (UTC) FILETIME=[1435BF50:01C7BF64] X-PMX-Version: 4.7.1.128075, Antispam-Engine: 2.5.1.298604, Antispam-Data: 2007.7.5.165433 X-PerlMx-Spam: Gauge=, SPAM=0%, Reason='EMC_BODY_1+ -3, EMC_FROM_0+ -3, NO_REAL_NAME 0, __C230066_P5 0, __CT 0, __CTE 0, __CT_TEXT_PLAIN 0, __HAS_MSGID 0, __IMS_MSGID 0, __MIME_TEXT_ONLY 0, __MIME_VERSION 0, __SANE_MSGID 0' X-Spam-Score: 0.2 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 97adf591118a232206bdb5a27b217034 Cc: dromasca@avaya.com, Black_David@emc.com Subject: [imss] Acceptance of draft-kzm-imss-fc-fcsp-mib-00.txt as an imss WG draft X-BeenThere: imss@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Internet and Management Support for Storage Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: imss-bounces@ietf.org As Keith noted to the list last month, the draft draft-kzm-imss-fc-fcsp-mib-00.txt has been posted to the Internet-Draft servers. This contains security management MIB modules that have been worked on in T11, and is intended as the starting point for the final work item on the imss WG's charter: Dec 2007 Submit Fibre Channel Security MIB modules to IESG for consideration as proposed standard In the absence of objection, this draft will be accepted as an official imss WG draft during the IETF meeting week in Chicago, July 22-27. Note: the imss WG is not meeting in Chicago as my intent is to handle work on this draft almost entirely on the mailing list. There will be a meeting in Vancouver if there are technical issues to discuss. I would like to see comments on acceptance of this draft, and particularly on its size. The draft is nearly 250 pages - security is not easy to manage ;-). It contains 6 MIB modules, and so I'm interested in hearing whether the draft ought to be split into multiple smaller drafts that may be easier to handle. Thanks, --David (imss WG chair) ---------------------------------------------------- David L. Black, Senior Technologist EMC Corporation, 176 South St., Hopkinton, MA 01748 +1 (508) 293-7953 FAX: +1 (508) 293-7786 black_david@emc.com Mobile: +1 (978) 394-7754 ---------------------------------------------------- _______________________________________________ imss mailing list imss@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/imss From imss-bounces@ietf.org Sat Jul 07 09:48:49 2007 Return-path: Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1I7AeS-0004gx-9A; Sat, 07 Jul 2007 09:48:44 -0400 Received: from imss by megatron.ietf.org with local (Exim 4.43) id 1I7AeQ-0004gr-Mm for imss-confirm+ok@megatron.ietf.org; Sat, 07 Jul 2007 09:48:42 -0400 Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1I7AeQ-0004gj-Bp for imss@ietf.org; Sat, 07 Jul 2007 09:48:42 -0400 Received: from sj-iport-5.cisco.com ([171.68.10.87]) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1I7AeQ-0008QY-1E for imss@ietf.org; Sat, 07 Jul 2007 09:48:42 -0400 Received: from sj-dkim-3.cisco.com ([171.71.179.195]) by sj-iport-5.cisco.com with ESMTP; 07 Jul 2007 06:48:09 -0700 X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AgAAAHY2j0arR7PDh2dsb2JhbACPNQEBCQ4s X-IronPort-AV: i="4.16,510,1175497200"; d="scan'208"; a="165955618:sNHT26813592" Received: from sj-core-1.cisco.com (sj-core-1.cisco.com [171.71.177.237]) by sj-dkim-3.cisco.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id l67Dm9Uh007883; Sat, 7 Jul 2007 06:48:09 -0700 Received: from cisco.com (pita.cisco.com [171.71.177.199]) by sj-core-1.cisco.com (8.12.10/8.12.6) with ESMTP id l67Dm4XH005365; Sat, 7 Jul 2007 13:48:08 GMT Received: (from kzm@localhost) by cisco.com (8.8.8-Cisco List Logging/8.8.8) id GAA27475; Sat, 7 Jul 2007 06:47:03 -0700 (PDT) From: Keith McCloghrie Message-Id: <200707071347.GAA27475@cisco.com> Subject: Re: [imss] Acceptance of draft-kzm-imss-fc-fcsp-mib-00.txt as an imss To: Black_David@emc.com Date: Sat, 7 Jul 2007 06:47:03 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: from "Black_David@emc.com" at Jul 05, 2007 08:24:55 PM X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.5 PL5] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit DKIM-Signature: v=0.5; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; l=2474; t=1183816089; x=1184680089; c=relaxed/simple; s=sjdkim3002; h=Content-Type:From:Subject:Content-Transfer-Encoding:MIME-Version; d=cisco.com; i=kzm@cisco.com; z=From:=20Keith=20McCloghrie=20 |Subject:=20Re=3A=20[imss]=20Acceptance=20of=20draft-kzm-imss-fc-fcsp-mib -00.txt=20as=20an=20imss |Sender:=20; bh=GRbrP0a5XKUNBD2wMbjQv511Wn1Z2cbhmHjzDqIXY6c=; b=SnwIbCMrOT23fXtVq9xkhGYD5+bSGXOAAa5HbUFl/proxVsr67wIMZNL1GaKavK3/+eRdQzb fxv6PjS/VzpXu4Fr10Ekcxe6yqd8fRH+4Hkm/BNaYUpNfzIy6CBSl3p+; Authentication-Results: sj-dkim-3; header.From=kzm@cisco.com; dkim=pass (sig from cisco.com/sjdkim3002 verified; ); X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 538aad3a3c4f01d8b6a6477ca4248793 Cc: imss@ietf.org, dromasca@avaya.com X-BeenThere: imss@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Internet and Management Support for Storage Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: imss-bounces@ietf.org David, The document is certainly larger than normal. However, I think that on balance it would be disadvantageous to split the document. Doing so would make each of multiple documents be "easier to handle" but at the cost of an increase in the sum total amount of work, e.g., N documents incur N times as much IETF-process overhead, and more time/work to be spent in checking the cross-references between the N documents. From a technical point of view, I think the necessary modularity is already obtained by having six MIB modules, i.e., without needing any MIB module to be in a separate document. Having a single document will also be the most efficient way to review the document, i.e., one large review, rather than a set of individually-smaller reviews which incur a larger aggregate of review effort. So, if WG is willing and if Dan can find a MIB Doctor to review the work as a single document, then I think that's the most efficient. Keith. > As Keith noted to the list last month, the draft > draft-kzm-imss-fc-fcsp-mib-00.txt has been posted to > the Internet-Draft servers. This contains security > management MIB modules that have been worked on in T11, > and is intended as the starting point for the final > work item on the imss WG's charter: > > Dec 2007 Submit Fibre Channel Security MIB modules > to IESG for consideration as proposed standard > > In the absence of objection, this draft will be accepted > as an official imss WG draft during the IETF meeting > week in Chicago, July 22-27. Note: the imss WG is not > meeting in Chicago as my intent is to handle work on > this draft almost entirely on the mailing list. There > will be a meeting in Vancouver if there are technical > issues to discuss. > > I would like to see comments on acceptance of this draft, > and particularly on its size. The draft is nearly > 250 pages - security is not easy to manage ;-). It > contains 6 MIB modules, and so I'm interested in hearing > whether the draft ought to be split into multiple smaller > drafts that may be easier to handle. > > Thanks, > --David (imss WG chair) > ---------------------------------------------------- > David L. Black, Senior Technologist > EMC Corporation, 176 South St., Hopkinton, MA 01748 > +1 (508) 293-7953 FAX: +1 (508) 293-7786 > black_david@emc.com Mobile: +1 (978) 394-7754 > ---------------------------------------------------- > _______________________________________________ imss mailing list imss@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/imss From imss-bounces@ietf.org Sun Jul 08 06:01:44 2007 Return-path: Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1I7TaG-00028o-KY; Sun, 08 Jul 2007 06:01:40 -0400 Received: from imss by megatron.ietf.org with local (Exim 4.43) id 1I7TaD-00028R-VR for imss-confirm+ok@megatron.ietf.org; Sun, 08 Jul 2007 06:01:37 -0400 Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1I7TaB-000288-BS for imss@ietf.org; Sun, 08 Jul 2007 06:01:36 -0400 Received: from de307622-de-outbound.net.avaya.com ([198.152.71.100]) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1I7Ta8-0007XV-NS for imss@ietf.org; Sun, 08 Jul 2007 06:01:35 -0400 Received: from unknown (HELO 307622ANEX5.global.avaya.com) ([135.64.140.14]) by de307622-de-outbound.net.avaya.com with ESMTP; 08 Jul 2007 06:00:59 -0400 X-IronPort-AV: i="4.16,513,1175486400"; d="scan'208"; a="35564555:sNHT8837478" X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Subject: RE: [imss] Acceptance of draft-kzm-imss-fc-fcsp-mib-00.txt as an imss Date: Sun, 8 Jul 2007 12:00:18 +0200 Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <200707071347.GAA27475@cisco.com> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: [imss] Acceptance of draft-kzm-imss-fc-fcsp-mib-00.txt as an imss Thread-Index: AcfAnXji9hg7VgaHTiuOwtoMq9zzpgAqHglQ References: from "Black_David@emc.com" at Jul 05, 2007 08:24:55 PM <200707071347.GAA27475@cisco.com> From: "Romascanu, Dan (Dan)" To: "Keith McCloghrie" , X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 73734d43604d52d23b3eba644a169745 Cc: imss@ietf.org X-BeenThere: imss@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Internet and Management Support for Storage Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: imss-bounces@ietf.org Speaking as a contributor I agree with the arguments presented by David and Keith. Splitting the documents will make in no way the life easier to implementers, will create an overhead in repeated boilerplate text can create potential cross-reference and document synchronization issues.=20 Speaking as AD, the task of finding reviewers for say three or four mid-sized documents is not easier than the task of finding a reviewer for one large sized document :-) >From both perspectives I support accepting the document in its current one document format. =20 Dan =20 =20 > -----Original Message----- > From: Keith McCloghrie [mailto:kzm@cisco.com]=20 > Sent: Saturday, July 07, 2007 4:47 PM > To: Black_David@emc.com > Cc: imss@ietf.org; Romascanu, Dan (Dan) > Subject: Re: [imss] Acceptance of=20 > draft-kzm-imss-fc-fcsp-mib-00.txt as an imss >=20 > David, >=20 > The document is certainly larger than normal. However, I=20 > think that on balance it would be disadvantageous to split=20 > the document. > Doing so would make each of multiple documents be "easier to handle" > but at the cost of an increase in the sum total amount of=20 > work, e.g., N documents incur N times as much IETF-process=20 > overhead, and more time/work to be spent in checking the=20 > cross-references between the N documents. From a technical=20 > point of view, I think the necessary modularity is already=20 > obtained by having six MIB modules, i.e., without needing any=20 > MIB module to be in a separate document. Having a single=20 > document will also be the most efficient way to review the=20 > document, i.e., one large review, rather than a set of=20 > individually-smaller reviews which incur a larger aggregate=20 > of review effort. So, if WG is willing and if Dan can find a=20 > MIB Doctor to review the work as a single document, then I=20 > think that's the most efficient. >=20 > Keith. >=20 > > As Keith noted to the list last month, the draft=20 > > draft-kzm-imss-fc-fcsp-mib-00.txt has been posted to the=20 > > Internet-Draft servers. This contains security management=20 > MIB modules=20 > > that have been worked on in T11, and is intended as the=20 > starting point=20 > > for the final work item on the imss WG's charter: > >=20 > > Dec 2007 Submit Fibre Channel Security MIB modules > > to IESG for consideration as proposed standard > >=20 > > In the absence of objection, this draft will be accepted as an=20 > > official imss WG draft during the IETF meeting week in=20 > Chicago, July=20 > > 22-27. Note: the imss WG is not meeting in Chicago as my=20 > intent is to=20 > > handle work on this draft almost entirely on the mailing=20 > list. There=20 > > will be a meeting in Vancouver if there are technical issues to=20 > > discuss. > >=20 > > I would like to see comments on acceptance of this draft, and=20 > > particularly on its size. The draft is nearly 250 pages -=20 > security is=20 > > not easy to manage ;-). It contains 6 MIB modules, and so I'm=20 > > interested in hearing whether the draft ought to be split into=20 > > multiple smaller drafts that may be easier to handle. > >=20 > > Thanks, > > --David (imss WG chair) > > ---------------------------------------------------- > > David L. Black, Senior Technologist > > EMC Corporation, 176 South St., Hopkinton, MA 01748 > > +1 (508) 293-7953 FAX: +1 (508) 293-7786 > > black_david@emc.com Mobile: +1 (978) 394-7754 > > ---------------------------------------------------- > >=20 >=20 _______________________________________________ imss mailing list imss@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/imss