Subject: RE: FC Management MIB - issues

From: John Nguyen <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 7 Nov 2001 16:29:49 -0800

Hi Keith,
	I'm John Nguyen, software engineer from Gadzoox Networks.
My company is also member of SNIA, DMTF, and thus many other
organizations, who are deploying Fibre Channel into SAN and working
with other joint vendors to propose many FC related standards.  
As we all are moving further in SAN and SAN market, it may be a
concern to think about bringing ZONE into FC Management MIB.  DMTF
and SNIA are those who may already have approved specifications
on zoning that can be incorporated.  I'm not sure if there are any ideas
or discussions around the table about this!  Thanks for taking mine as
input to utilize zoning in the new FC mgmt MIB. 

Regards,
John Nguyen
Software Engineer
408.361.6142

Gadzoox Networks

-----Original Message-----
From: Keith McCloghrie [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Wednesday, November 07, 2001 1:03 PM
To: [email-masked]
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: FC Management MIB - issues

Hi,

As indicated by Elizabeth's message (below), I've agreed to be the
interim editor for the FC Management MIB.  So, first, I'd like to
list a set of issues that have been raised concerning the most
recent draft: draft-ietf-ipfc-fcmgmt-int-mib-07.txt.  They are:

  1. The use of SMIv2 is mandatory.

  2. This MIB seems to have been defined with the notion that it will be
  the only MIB that a Fibre Channel product will require.  The notion of
  an agent implementing just a single MIB was abandoned by the IETF in
  1992 as being non-scaleable.  Rather, this is another MIB in the
  continuing series of MIBs defined by the IETF, and thus, it needs to be
  consistent with its predecessors.  In other words, there are existing
  MIBs which all SNMP agents must support, even if the support of Fibre
  Channel interfaces is the only functionality that they have.  Thus, as
  the Fibre Channel Integration MIB, it is essential that this MIB
  contain only objects for information which is specific to Fibre
  Channel.  All objects which apply in non-Fibre Channel environments
  need to be removed.  (This applies even it were to require the
  definition of other new MIBs to contain information which is not
  already defined in other existing MIBs, but needed by Fibre Channel
  products.)  Note that this issue applies to a large fraction of the
  objects defined in this MIB.

  3. The text needs to include an explanation of the relationship between
  this MIB and RFC 2837.  Is it a replacement or is it complementary ?
  If complementary, which agents implement which MIB; do some agents
  implement both ?

  4. Every SNMP agent implements the ifTable.  The ifTable counters are
  undoubtedly the MIB objects most well-used by administrators in SNMP
  management.  SNMP agents need to implement a row in the ifTable for
  each of their network interfaces, including their Fibre Channel
  interfaces.  The IF-MIB requires a media-specific MIB to specify how
  that type of interface uses the ifTable (see section 4 in RFC 2863).
  RFC 2837 doesn't do that, and nor (currently) does this MIB.  That
  needs to be fixed.  This will likely result in many tables in this
  MIB being indexed by ifIndex.
  
  5. There are a number of objects related to the "Simple Name Service",
  and the definitions refer to Fibre Channel's GS-3 spec.  However, GS-3
  defines two Name Services: a Zoned Name Service and a Unzoned Name
  Service, but GS-3 does NOT use the term "Simple" for either of them !!
  This ambiguity needs to be resolved.

  6. It is essential that the Counter32 or Counter64 (not OCTET STRINGs)
  syntax be used for counters.
  
Thanks,
Keith.
--------------
Forwarded message:
> From: "Elizabeth Rodriguez" <[email-masked]>
> To: <[email-masked]>,
>         "IPS Mailing List (E-mail)" <[email-masked]>
> Subject: FC Management MIB -- Transfer from IPFC To IPS WG
> Cc: <[email-masked]>, <[email-masked]>, <[email-masked]>,
>         <[email-masked]>, <[email-masked]>, <[email-masked]>,
>         <[email-masked]>,
>         "Elizabeth Rodriguez"
<[email-masked]>,
>         <[email-masked]>
> 
> All,
> 
> The IPFC working group has only one item left on its charter.  
> It is that of the FC Management MIB.  It has been identified 
> that this MIB does not follow the IETF guidelines for MIBs 
> in its current format, in its lack of focus, and in its overlap 
> with existing MIBs.  Rework of this MIB will take some time.  
> The content of this MIB will fit in well with the IPS WG, 
> especially because the subject matter experts participate in
> this WG.
>  
> For these reasons, the working group chairs, with the INT and TSV area
> directors, have determined that this effort should be moved from the
> IPFC working group to the IPS working group.  Upon transferring of this
> work, the IPFC working group will have completed the items in its
> charter and the IPFC WG will be closed.
> 
> The IPS working group has a technical advisor for MIB work -- Keith
> McCloghrie.  Since it has been determined that the current MIB has
> issues with format, Keith McCloghrie has agreed to become the interim
> editor of this MIB.  As part of the re-architecture, the MIB will be
> evaluated with respect to fit with other IPS WG MIBs, and may take the
> form of a single new MIB or multiple MIBs, as appropriate.  The IPS
> working group will also be seeking Fibre Channel expertise to help
> formulate the new MIB, including an editor with FC and MIB experience.
> 
> The IPFC working group would also like to thank Steven Blumenau for all
> his work on the original MIB.  
> 
> Elizabeth Rodriguez & David Black, IPS Working Group Chairs
> Murali Rajagopal, IPFC Working Group Chair
>