Re: FC Management MIB - proposed changes

[Keith McCloghrie <kzm@cisco.com>]

Predrag,

> Point 8:
> Although there are quite a few issues around zoning management,
> most of them revolving around perceived inadequate security of
> SNMP,

I assume you mean the inadequate security of SNMPv1 and SNMPv2c,
i.e., nobody perceives that SNMPv3 is insecure, right ??

> without this information MIB will not be complete. 

Are you saying that this MIB will not be complete, or that Fibre
Channel management will not be complete ?  

> Zoning management is extensively defined in FC-GS3, is specific
> to FC, and I do not see any reasons to delay this for some point
> in the future.

I see several options:

1. have the first version of the new FC-Mgmt MIB include Zoning,

2. start work on another MIB to address Zoning in parallel with
working on the first version of the new FC-Mgmt MIB.

3. complete the first version (Internet-Draft) of the new FC-Mgmt
MIB, and defer the addition of Zoning until a second or subsequent
Internet-Draft of this MIB, but before its WG Last Call.

4. defer the start of work on another MIB to address Zoning until
after completing the first version (Internet-Draft) of the new
FC-Mgmt MIB.

5. finish the new FC-Mgmt MIB, including having it published as an
RFC, and only then work on extending it to address Zoning.

I'm not proposing #5 (as you may have feared).  Rather, I'm proposing
that we not do #1 - specifically, that producing the first version of
the new FC-Mgmt MIB is a large enough task, that we should do it first
before tackling Zoning.  I also think #2 would require coodination
between something new and something which is changing, and therefore
would be more work/more difficult than is warranted/necessary.  So, I'm
proposing either #3 or #4; at this point, I don't have a feel for which
would be better.

What do you think ?

Keith.

> Regards
> 
> Predrag Spasic,
> Hewlett Packard
> Details: https://ecardfile.com/id/predrag_spasic
>  
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Keith McCloghrie [mailto:kzm@cisco.com]
> > Sent: Thursday, November 08, 2001 10:43 AM
> > To: ips@ece.cmu.edu
> > Cc: kzm@cisco.com
> > Subject: FC Management MIB - proposed changes
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > Based on the issues that I listed in my previous message 
> > (yesterday), I
> > have a set of changes that I'd like to make to the FC-Mgmt MIB,
> > providing there are no objections from the WG.  These changes (the
> > first six correspond to the issues list) are:
> > 
> > 1. MIB will be written using SMIv2.
> > 
> > 2. All objects which apply in non-Fibre Channel environments will be
> > removed.  (Note that this applies to a large fraction of the objects
> > defined in this MIB.)
> > 
> > 2a. For those objects which will be removed, if there are any which
> > are: a) not already covered in other MIBs, and b) considered essential
> > to the management of Fibre Channel-based products, then it will be
> > necessary to consider whether other MIB(s) need to be modified/created
> > as a home for them, and if so which WG(s) should undertake such work.
> > 
> > 3. With 20x20 hindsight, the following observations can be made with
> > respect to RFC 2837:
> > 
> > - the reason that we now have the issue of how it relates to the
> >   FC-Mgmt MIB is because it was written as a Fabric Element MIB;
> >   this issue would not have arisen if it had been written as a
> >   Fibre Channel interface MIB.
> > - it should have extended the ifTable, rather than 
> > overlapping with it,
> > - it should not have defined the fcFeModuleTable, which overlaps with
> >   the Entity MIB.
> > - and it should have specified (at least) its octet counters 
> > as Counter64.
> > 
> > Given these problems, I propose that the new FC-Mgmt MIB be specified
> > as a replacement for RFC 2837.
> > 
> > 4. This MIB will include a media-specific MIB to specify how Fibre
> > Channel interfaces use the ifTable (see section 4 in RFC 2863).  This
> > will result in many tables in this MIB being indexed by ifIndex.
> > 
> > 5. Regarding the the MIB objects for the "Simple Name Service",
> > I see two possible solutions:
> > 
> > i. retain the MIB objects but focus them on GS-3's Unzoned 
> > Name Service.
> > 
> > ii. remove the MIB objects for the "Simple Name Service" from 
> > this MIB.
> >    If there is WG consensus that a MIB is needed for one of 
> > the GS-3 Name
> >    Services, and for which one, then the appropriate set of 
> > MIB objects
> >    can be defined in a new MIB.
> > 
> > Of these two, I propose to investigate solution i), and if it proves
> > feasible, then to adopt it;  if not, to fall back to solution ii).
> > 
> > 6. The Counter32 or Counter64 syntax will be used for counters.
> > 
> > 7. In addition to the above, it has been suggested that MIB objects to
> > support Class 1 are no longer needed.  If I don't hear any objections,
> > I will assume that I can make this change also.
> > 
> > 8. Yesterday, John Nguyen (jnguyen@gadzoox.com) asked in an 
> > email about
> > "bringing ZONE into FC Management MIB".  His suggestion would seem to
> > be in addition to, rather than as a replacement for, anything 
> > which will
> > be in the new FC-Mgmt MIB.  Thus, at this point in time, I'd like to
> > suggest that the changes listed above represent a large enough amount
> > of work for us to chew on.  Therefore, I propose that our answer to
> > John's query is to ask him to  re-raise this issue at a point in the
> > future when the new FC-Mgmt MIB is becoming more stable.
> > 
> > 9. Are there any other changes that anyone would like to see at this
> > time ?
> > 
> > Also note that with this MIB now being in a different WG, the 
> > I-D needs
> > to have a draft-ietf-ips-xxx name.  I propose to use
> > draft-ietf-ips-fcmgmt-mib-00.txt.
> > 
> > Keith.
> > 
>