Re: FC Management MIB - proposed changes

[Keith McCloghrie <kzm@cisco.com>]

> For simplicity, I would propose keeping the initial revision focused
> on structural and format changes only - i.e., make no functional
> changes that aren't required to bring the MIB into line with the
> overall architecture of MIBs, use of SMIv2, and the like.  

Agreed.  Even so, almost everything in the MIB will be affected.

> Comments on this, keyed to Keith's issue numbers:
> 
> 1.  The trap table doesn't match up with RFC 2573 - I presume
> 	correcting this is part of the conversion to SMIv2.
 
With SNMPv2c/SNMPv3, a Trap became one of the two forms by which a
notification is transmitted; the other form is an InformRequest.
SMIv2 MIBs don't define traps - they define notifications (with the
NOTIFICATION-TYPE macro).  With SNMPv2c/SNMPv3, agents generate
notifications, not traps.  The destinations to which a notification is
sent is determined by the tables in the two MIBs defined in RFC 2573:
the SNMP-NOTIFICATION-MIB and SNMP-TARGET-MIB.  The snmpNotifyType
object in RFC 2573 determines in which form the notification is
tranmsitted to a destination; it's possible for the same notification
generated by an agent to be sent as a trap to one destination, and as
an inform to another destination.  Thus, the trap table is a
relic of the SNMPv1-only days; it is: a) insufficient for
SNMPv2c/SNMPv3, and b) a duplicate of a subset of RFC 2573.  It should
be deleted without replacement.

> 3.  Let's keep the replacement of RFC 2837 as (a) a proposal
> 	and (b) Keith's recommendation to the WG as MIB Advisor,
> 	but not formally adopt that approach until we have a version
> 	of the MIB draft that would replace RFC 2837 available for
> 	review by the WG.

We can postpone the decision on what happens to 2837.   However, 2837
contains information on FC interfaces.  The FC-MGMT MIB also contains
information on FC interfaces.  Most of the information will be the
same, and should be defined once; I propose in the new FC-MGMT MIB.
There are a few pieces of information which are specific to Fabric
Elements.  I'll include those in the FC-MGMT MIB for the time being,
until the postponed decision is made.

> 5.  I think there's a misunderstanding here.  There is only one
> 	name service in any FC fabric, period.  The term "Simple Name
> 	Service" is historical and refers to the current approach
> 	to Fibre Channel fabric name service by contrast to the
> 	originally-proposed X.500 directory-based approach (see the
> 	original FC-GS) - the meaning of "Simple" should now be
> 	obvious, as it's by comparison to X.500 ;-).
> 
> 	Both the Zoned and Unzoned name services are simple name services.
> 	The same objects can be used to represent both, as only one is
> 	active at any time, and the communication interfaces/protocols
> 	are identical.  Client access to the name service is the same
> 	in both cases; zoned vs. unzoned only affects server behavior
> 	in terms of what is returned to a query.  In addition the name
> 	service objects are described to represent only entities
> 	"known to this unit".  So, in a zoned fabric, I would expect
> 	the table in a switch to be completely populated, but the table
> 	in an HBA to contain only the entries in that HBA's zone
> 	because the HBA doesn't "know" about any others.
> 
> 	The name server objects need to be retained - these are quite
> 	important for fabric management visibility.  Whether the fabric
> 	is zoned or not and how the nameserver behaves can be determined
> 	from the zone objects (i.e., for a switch, the nameserver objects
> 	contain everything and the zone objects have to be consulted to
> 	figure out what a query from a particular client to the nameserver
> 	will return).

OK.

> 7.  I would definitely take out Class 1 support, and reference FC-MI
> 	(which prohibits Class 1 service) as an authority for doing so.
 
OK.

> 8.  For the initial version, I would only carry forward the zone
> 	objects existing in the current MIB and not define any new
> 	functionality - that can be done in revisions after -00.
 
OK.

> 9.  I'd prefer that the -00 version contain no additional functional
> 	changes beyond those required to support the necessary
> 	structure and format changes.  Once we have that -00 baseline,
> 	functional changes can be made from there.
 
OK.

> 2, 4, and 6 look fine to me, as does the new draft name.
 
Thnaks,
Keith.