(sorry - please ignore. I resent with fixed subject and distribution.)
On 5/10/15 2:06 PM, Paul Kyzivat wrote:
I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. For background on Gen-ART, please see the FAQ at <http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/GenArtfaq>. Please resolve these comments along with any other Last Call comments you may receive. Document: draft-ietf-opsawg-vmm-mib-02 Reviewer: Paul Kyzivat Review Date: IETF LC End Date: 2015-05-18 IESG Telechat date: (if known) Summary: Ready with minor issues. Major issues: None. Minor issues: * Figure 2: A few things are fuzzy about this figure: -- The meaning/purpose of the part above the "====", and its relationship to the rest of the diagram, isn't clear to me. Is it a legend, explaining the notation for transient vs. finite states? -- what is the point of the 'preparing' state? There is no way in, and the only way out is to shutdown. (I could understand it as a starting state if there was a path to running.) While it is described later, in this figure it seems to have no purpose. -- the 'blocked' and 'crashed' states have no way either in or out. Surely there must be some path into these states, and some path out (at least to shutdown or deleted.) I see from the later definitions that arbitrary state transitions can be represented. Is Figure 2 intended to normatively constrain the state transitions? Or does it only provide an overview of "expected" transitions? I don't feel I understand the intent sufficiently to suggest changes to remedy my confusion. * Section 5 This says "Hypervisors *shall* implement HOST-RESOURCES-MIB." This sounds normative. If so, 'shall' should be replaced with MUST. The same issue with 'shall' is present in the 2nd paragraph refering to virtual machines. Also in the 2nd paragraph I can't parse or fully understand the last sentence. ("This document defines the objects of these information.") Changing 'these' to 'this' would make it grammatical, but still not very clear. I guess you mean something like: "This document defines the relationship between the objects visible to virtual machine operators and those visible to hypervisor operators." * Section 8 - Security Considerations: I see no 2119 language in this section, but I see language that sounds normative to me. E.g., "When SNMPv3 strong security is not used, these objects ***should*** have access of read-only, not read-write." If these statements are intended to be normative then please use 2119 language. The rest leaves me concerned about security. But I will leave it to a security review to dig into. Nits/editorial comments: * The introduction says that this has been derived from "enterprise specific" MIB modules. But the examples sound more "product-specific" than enterprise-specific. I guess you mean modules created by the enterprise producing the product, so maybe it is ok, but it struck me as odd. (Please feel free to leave this as-is if the usage is appropriate in context.) * Page 22, DESCRIPTION of vmHvSoftware: This says "This value should not include its version, and it should be included in `vmHvVersion'." IIUC 'and' is the wrong word to use here - 'as' would convey the intended meaning. _______________________________________________ Gen-art mailing list Gen-art@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
_______________________________________________ Gen-art mailing list Gen-art@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
