RFC 4935, "Fibre Channel Fabric Configuration Server MIB", August 2007

Errata ID: 1030
Status: Held for Document Update
Type: Technical
Publication Format(s) : TEXT
Reported By: Alfred Hoenes
Date Reported: 2007-09-12
Held for Document Update by: Dan Romascanu

(1)  Section 4 -- missing articles

On page 5 of RFC 4935, the last paragraph of Section 4 says:

   This MIB imports some common Textual Conventions from T11-TC-MIB
   [RFC4439] and from T11-FC-NAME-SERVER-MIB [RFC4438].  It also imports
   URLString from NETWORK-SERVICES-MIB [RFC2788].

It should perhaps better say:

|  This MIB imports some common Textual Conventions from the T11-TC-MIB
|  [RFC4439] and from the T11-FC-NAME-SERVER-MIB [RFC4438].  It also
|  imports URLString from the NETWORK-SERVICES-MIB [RFC2788].


(2)  Section 5.3 -- typo

The first paragraph of Section 5.3, on page 6, says:
                                                          v
|  With multiple Fabrics, each Fabric has its own instances of the
   Fabric-related management instrumentation.  [...]

It should say:

|  With multiple Fabrics, each Fabric has its own instance of the
   Fabric-related management instrumentation.  [...]


(3)  Section 5.4 -- unspecific text

Section 5.4, on top of page 7, says:

   This section describes the six MIB groups contained in the MIB
|  module.

It should more specifically say, e.g.:

   This section describes the six MIB groups contained in the MIB
|  module defined in Section 6.
         ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

(4)  Section 6


(4a) improper use of term

In the DESCRIPTION clause of MODULE-IDENTITY invocation, in the first
line on page 10, the term "MIB" should be replaced by the standards-
conformant term "MIB module".


(4b) missing article

In the DESCRIPTION clause of the t11FcsFabricDiscoveryTable OBJECT-TYPE
declaration, on top of page 15, the RFC says:

            "This table contains control information for discovery
            of Fabric configuration by switches.

It should better say:
                                                         vvvv
|           "This table contains control information for the discovery
            of Fabric configuration by switches.


(4c) word replication

In the DESCRIPTION clause of the t11FcsFabricDiscoveryStart OBJECT-TYPE
declaration, on mid-page 16, the RFC says:
                                                              vvvvv
                                     [...].  It is recommended that
            whenever an instance of this object is set to 'start',
|           that the desired range be specified at the same time by
            ^^^^^
            setting the corresponding instances of
            t11FcsFabricDiscoveryRangeLow and
            t11FcsFabricDiscoveryRangeHigh.

It should better say:

                                     [...].  It is recommended that
            whenever an instance of this object is set to 'start',
|           the desired range be specified at the same time by
            setting the corresponding instances of
            t11FcsFabricDiscoveryRangeLow and
            t11FcsFabricDiscoveryRangeHigh.


(4d) mis-specification

The DESCRIPTION clause of the t11FcsIeMgmtAddrListIndex OBJECT-TYPE
declaration, at the bottom of page 21, says:

            "The management address list for this Interconnect Element.
|           This object points to an entry in the
            t11FcsMgmtAddrListTable."

This is not true.  Cf. the corresponding description of the
T11FcListIndexPointerOrZero TEXTUAL-CONVENTION and the description
clauses for the t11FcsMgmtAddrListTable pointed to by this object.
In fact, this object points to a 'slice' in the
t11FcsMgmtAddrListTable, namely the set of entries with common
third index equal to the value of the row instance of this object.

Therefore, the RFC should say either:

            "The management address list for this Interconnect Element.
|           This object points to a particular list in the
            t11FcsMgmtAddrListTable."

or:

            "The management address list for this Interconnect Element.
|           This object points to a set of entries in the
            t11FcsMgmtAddrListTable."

This issue recurs.
Similar changes need to be applied to the occurrences of "an entry"
in the DESCRIPTION clauses of the following OBJECT-TYPE declarations:

(4e)
  - t11FcsPortAttachPortNameIndex (at the bottom of page 25),

(4f)
  - t11FcsPlatformNodeNameListIndex (on page 30),  and

(4g)
  - t11FcsPlatformMgmtAddrListIndex (on page 30),


(4h) insufficient / inappropriate specification

The DESCRIPTION clause of the t11FcsPlatformSysMgmtAddr OBJECT-TYPE
declaration (on page 32) says:

|           "A list of management addresses for the platform."

This is misleading; taken literally, it would replicate precisely
the semantics specified for the t11FcsPlatformMgmtAddrListIndex
object (on page 30).  This cannot have been intended.

I strongly suspect that the RFC should say instead:

|           "A list of management addresses for the hosting
|            system of the platform."


(4i) incomplete specification

The DESCRIPTION clause of the t11FcsDiscoveryCompleteNotify
NOTIFICATION-TYPE declaration (near the bottom of page 40) says:

            "This notification is generated by the Fabric
            Configuration Server on the completion of the
            discovery of Fabrics in the range that has
|           t11FcsFabricDiscoveryRangeLow at its low end."

This is incomplete and misleading;
the upper limit of the Fabric index needs to be specified as well.

Thus, the RFC should say:

            "This notification is generated by the Fabric
            Configuration Server on the completion of the
            discovery of Fabrics in the range that has
|           t11FcsFabricDiscoveryRangeLow at its low end and
|           t11FcsFabricDiscoveryRangeHigh at its high end."


IMHO, in particular the items (4a) and (4d) ... (4i) above
deserve being addressed by an appropriate RFC Errata Note.

Report New Errata