SORT BY:

LIST ORDER
THREAD
AUTHOR
SUBJECT


SEARCH

IPS HOME


    [Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

    Re: Additional FC MIBs proposed



    Hi Roger,
    
    Thanks for correcting the errors in my message.  I'm glad that the
    Letter Ballot comment was effective.  I tried to check the status
    before sending my message but was unable to access the PDF file at:
    
      ftp://ftp.t11.org/t11/member/fc/fa/02-134v4.pdf 
    
    and that's why I worded my message with caveats like "the last time I
    looked", and "T11 seem to have", etc.
    
    I was especially pleased to read your last sentence (about not repeating
    past mistakes).
    
    Thanks,
    Keith.
     
    > Keith,
    > 
    > T11 has certainly traditionally not had a great amount of MIB expertise,
    > although with the formation of T11.5 containing some organizations with
    > expertise in this area, and the participation of some of us in efforts like
    > the SCSI MIB along with some notable experts that's changing, albeit slowly.
    > :-)) However that is OK because T11 has also never generated a MIB for Fibre
    > Channel, as far as I'm aware. The draft-ietf-ipfc-fcmgmt-int-mib was neither
    > submitted to the IETF by T11 (it was created in an independent industry
    > group called the Fibre Alliance), nor was it developed in T11.
    > 
    > I'm frankly not sure what your reference to "publishing
    > draft-ietf-ips-fcmgmt-mib
    > as if it were the definitive standard for a Fibre Channel MIB" relates to.
    > If this relates to the MIB-FA Technical Report that was recently published
    > as INCITS TR-33:2003 then:
    > 
    > a) This is a Technical Report, NOT a standard, definitive or otherwise.
    > 
    > b) The TR contains three different revisions of the MIB, because all three
    > are used and different.
    > 
    > c) The Scope section of this document states:
    > 
    > The MIBs specified in this technical report are widely implemented even
    > though they do not meet IETF requirements. To address this issue a revised
    > Fibre Channel Management MIB has been developed in the IETF. For new
    > implementations, vendors should implement the revised IETF Fibre Channel
    > Management MIB.
    > 
    > This wording was introduced in response to a comment submitted against the
    > T11 Letter Ballot by Cisco. I'm both the T11.5 Chair and the T11 webmaster,
    > and I'm certainly not aware of any  requests for wording in relation to this
    > subject that weren't honored.
    > 
    > The T11 web site does not list any reference to draft-ietf-ips-fcmgmt-mib as
    > a published standard. Quite to the contrary, the front page for Task Group
    > T11.5 (http://www.t11.org/t11/stat.nsf/tg5) links to a page containing SNMP
    > information on which the only MIBs referenced are the IETF Entity MIB, and
    > the FC Management MIB I-D via the link on the IETF IP Storage WG page.
    > 
    > Keith, I completely agree that the current situation regarding the FA MIB is
    > NOT good, and I'd like to see the new MIB adopted with all possible speed.
    > Part of the reason that I agreed to come back into T11 and get involved in
    > T11.5 was a realization that the many of the FC companies had not been
    > closely integrated enough with the development of management interfaces and
    > information definitions. That having been said, I'm under pressure from some
    > quarters to focus T11.5's attention on newer and supposedly "more
    > extensible" management schemes. I think that would be narrow-minded in the
    > extreme, but discussions like this aren't exactly helping my cause!
    > 
    > I've already indicated to the IPS WG Co-Chairs that I'm neutral as to where
    > further MIB work for FC gets done, and I'll personally participate wherever
    > this happens. If the decision is that there is insufficient support in the
    > IETF I'll solicit support for one or more new projects getting created in
    > T11.5 to do this work, and I'll issue a call for people with expertise to
    > participate as always. I still have the slides from your "Tips on MIB
    > design" presentation that you gave to the IP Working Group on August 27,
    > 2001 and I'd certainly solicit your making the same type of presentation in
    > T11.5 and your active participation in the work there if at all possible.
    > Regardless of where the work gets done, I think you'll find a number of
    > people with very firm desires NOT to repeat what happened with the earlier
    > Fibre Channel MIBs.
    > 
    > Regards,
    > 
    > 
    > Roger Cummings
    > 
    > roger.cummings@veritas.com
    > 
    > 
    > 
    > 
    > -----Original Message-----
    > From: Keith McCloghrie [mailto:kzm@cisco.com]
    > Sent: Wednesday, June 25, 2003 1:15 PM
    > To: pat_thaler@agilent.com
    > Cc: Black_David@emc.com; ips@ece.cmu.edu
    > Subject: Re: Additional FC MIBs proposed
    > 
    > 
    > The issue with doing the MIBs in T11 is that T11 has, in the past, not
    > had the appropriate amount of MIB expertise.  My understanding is that
    > T11 themselves acknowledged this by the submission of the "Fibre
    > Alliance MIB" as draft-ietf-ipfc-fcmgmt-int-mib.  However, as and when
    > the IPFC WG had completed all other items in its charter, it had been
    > unable to reach consensus on that MIB.  So, to allow the IPFC WG to
    > conclude, the unfinished work item was moved to the IP Storage WG.
    > After abortive attempts to get changes in draft-ietf-ipfc-fcmgmt-int-mib,
    > I created draft-ietf-ips-fcmgmt-mib as a MIB which: a) meets IETF's
    > standards, b) replaces both draft-ietf-ips-fcmgmt-mib and the overlapping
    > RFC 2837, and c) details the problems with those previous MIBs.
    > 
    > Meanwhile, T11 has published on its website a copy of one version (I'm
    > not sure if it's the latest version) of draft-ietf-ips-fcmgmt-mib.
    > Since that MIB is widely implemented in the industry, I agreed that
    > such publication would be appropriate *if* T11's publication indicated
    > that the MIB is already being deprecated by the IETF's definition of
    > draft-ietf-ips-fcmgmt-mib.  The last time I looked, T11 had failed to
    > do that; rather, T11 seem to have published draft-ietf-ips-fcmgmt-mib
    > as if it were the definitive standard for a Fibre Channel MIB.
    > (However, the MIB was still in its Internet-Draft format, and perhaps
    > T11 intended that as an indication that the MIB was just a draft, as
    > ephemeral as all Internet-Drafts are, by definition).  These recent
    > actions of T11 suggest to me that they still do not have the
    > appropriate amount of MIB expertise.
    > 
    > The bottom line is that a bad MIB was widely implemented in the industry,
    > and I believe that network management of Fibre Channel devices suffered
    > because of that.  A better MIB for Fibre Channel has been defined in the
    > IP Storage WG, who have already discussed the definition of further FC MIBs
    > (see http://www.pdl.cmu.edu/mailinglists/ips/mail/msg09473.html), but
    > deferred them as future work.
    > 
    > Keith.
    > 
    > 
    > > It doesn't appear that any of these MIBs are in scope for us. They
    > > don't deal with IP storage. They are all very specific to Fibre Channel
    > > and deal mostly with fabric issues. T11 would be more appropriate.
    > > 
    > > Pat
    > > 
    > > -----Original Message-----
    > > From: Black_David@emc.com [mailto:Black_David@emc.com]
    > > Sent: Monday, June 23, 2003 6:55 AM
    > > To: ips@ece.cmu.edu
    > > Subject: Additional FC MIBs proposed
    > > 
    > > 
    > > Everyone,
    > > 
    > > This Internet-Draft describes a number of MIBs that the authors
    > > would like the IPS WG to take up.  The WG chairs are seeking
    > > input on the level interest in standardization and use of these
    > > MIBs, the appropriateness of working on them here (vs. T11) and
    > > prioritization (which ones to take up first, as all 9 in parallel
    > > is not likely).
    > > 
    > > Send comments/opinions/etc. to the list or directly to Elizabeth
    > > (ElizabethRodriguez@ieee.org) and myself (black_david@emc.com).
    > > 
    > > Thanks,
    > > --David
    > > ----------------------------------------------------
    > > 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
    > > ----------------------------------------------------
    > > 
    > > -----Original Message-----
    > > From: Internet-Drafts@ietf.org [mailto:Internet-Drafts@ietf.org] 
    > > Sent: Friday, June 20, 2003 2:28 PM
    > > Subject: I-D ACTION:draft-gai-fc-mibs-00.txt
    > > 
    > > 
    > > A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts
    > > directories.
    > > 
    > > 
    > > 	Title		: MIBs Standardization for Fibre Channel
    > > 	Author(s)	: S. Gai et al.
    > > 	Filename	: draft-gai-fc-mibs-00.txt
    > > 	Pages		: 9
    > > 	Date		: 2003-6-20
    > > 	
    > > Fibre Channel (FC) is a high speed serial interface technology that   
    > > supports several Upper Layer Protocols including Small Computer 
    > > System Interface (SCSI) and IP. Fibre Channel is standardized by the 
    > > INCITS T11 Technical Committee. Fibre Channel Standards include 
    > > Framing and Signaling protocols [FC-FS], Generic Services protocols 
    > > [FC-GS-3], Switch Fabric protocols [FC-SW-2], etc.
    > > The management of a Fibre Channel network requires to monitor and set 
    > > many parameters related to these protocols and this may be 
    > > accomplished defining a proper set of MIBs.
    > > 
    > > A URL for this Internet-Draft is:
    > > http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-gai-fc-mibs-00.txt
    > > 
    > > To remove yourself from the IETF Announcement list, send a message to 
    > > ietf-announce-request with the word unsubscribe in the body of the
    > message.
    > > 
    > > Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP. Login with the
    > username
    > > "anonymous" and a password of your e-mail address. After logging in, type
    > > "cd internet-drafts" and then
    > > 	"get draft-gai-fc-mibs-00.txt".
    > > 
    > > A list of Internet-Drafts directories can be found in
    > > http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html 
    > > or ftp://ftp.ietf.org/ietf/1shadow-sites.txt
    > > 
    > > 
    > > Internet-Drafts can also be obtained by e-mail.
    > > 
    > > Send a message to:
    > > 	mailserv@ietf.org.
    > > In the body type:
    > > 	"FILE /internet-drafts/draft-gai-fc-mibs-00.txt".
    > > 	
    > > NOTE:	The mail server at ietf.org can return the document in
    > > 	MIME-encoded form by using the "mpack" utility.  To use this
    > > 	feature, insert the command "ENCODING mime" before the "FILE"
    > > 	command.  To decode the response(s), you will need "munpack" or
    > > 	a MIME-compliant mail reader.  Different MIME-compliant mail readers
    > > 	exhibit different behavior, especially when dealing with
    > > 	"multipart" MIME messages (i.e. documents which have been split
    > > 	up into multiple messages), so check your local documentation on
    > > 	how to manipulate these messages.
    > > 		
    > > 		
    > > Below is the data which will enable a MIME compliant mail reader
    > > implementation to automatically retrieve the ASCII version of the
    > > Internet-Draft.
    > > 
    > 
    


Home

Last updated: Thu Jun 26 02:19:24 2003
12674 messages in chronological order