Subject: [Ips] Gen-ART review of draft-ietf-ips-scsi-mib-08

From: Harald Tveit Alvestrand <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 17 Jan 2006 16:02:41 +0100

This is a Gen-ART review.
For Gen-ART info, see this 
URL:<http://www.alvestrand.no/ietf/gen/art/gen-art-FAQ.html>

Document: draft-ietf-ips-scsi-mib-08.txt
Reviewer: Harald Alvestrand
Date: Jan 17, 2006
Summary: Excellent document, two important comments.

I enjoyed reading this document! - the intro to SCSI and its history was 
fun to read!
----------------------------------------------------------
Two important questions, that may warrant a respin of the document if I'm 
right that there's a problem here:

[SAM-2] and [SPC2] are normative references (defines format for ScsiLUN and 
other things), but are listed as Working Drafts in the REFERENCE clauses of 
multiple MIB objects. (In the references section, the draftness seems 
implied by the URL only)
Is this stable enough for an IETF standard reference?
Or are the references in the MIB wrong?

The term "running at high speed" is a gating criterion for whether or not 
the HS counters are mandatory, but I can't see that it's defined in a 
testable way. Might have missed it - it would logically seem to belong in 
section 7.5.
-------------------------------------------------------------
Questions, that I'd like to have answered in email, but don't warrant a 
respin in my opinion:

The scsiDscTgtTable and scsiAuthorizedIntr table seem to form "access 
lists". They seem to be read-write via SNMP. Should this be explicitly 
mentioned in the intro in section 5?
The security considerations for these objects are very good, and make it 
very clear that they're writable!

SAS (Serial Attached SCSI) is not mentioned at all. Is it irrelevant, or 
"just another transport"? Or is this what's called "scsiTransportSBP"?
-------------------------------------------------------------
Nits, which IMHO you can fix or not as you feel like:

Some byzantine sentences...

7.3 "another logical unit changes its status to from available" is missing 
something

7.4 "at 10GBit/second with 512 read/write operations" seems to be missing a 
byte :-)

RFC 2119 is listed as an informative reference. I think it needs to be 
normative.
_______________________________________________
Ips mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ips