Joe,

> No, TC stays the same, but the tense of the states should change to:
> 
> unknown(1)
> enabled(2)
> disabled(3)
> 
> Since the associated object is now read-only.

It makes sense.

I'm OK to update the above values.  Any objections from other authors?

---
Keiichi SHIMA (島 慶一)
WIDE project <[email protected]>
Research Laboratory, IIJ Innovation Institute, Inc <[email protected]>



On 2013/10/18, at 4:04, Joe Marcus Clarke <[email protected]> wrote:

> On 10/17/13 6:55 AM, Keiichi SHIMA wrote:
>> Hi,
>> 
>> On 2013/10/15, at 23:42, Joe Marcus Clarke <[email protected]> wrote:
>> 
>>> NIT: VirtualMachineAdminState:
>>> 
>> 
>>> The destroy(5) state really doesn't match in terms of tense.  What about 
>>> destroyed(5)?  That said, since this is something one can set, perhaps 
>>> present tense like run, pause, suspend, etc. make sense.
>> 
>> The original intention of the naming of VirtualMachineAdminState was, 'to 
>> transit the operation state of a virtual machine to X by setting its admin 
>> state as X'.  For example, when we set 'suspended' to the admin state of a 
>> virtual machine, then the virtual machine will start transition to the 
>> suspended operation state.  We intentionally used the same state names here. 
>>  That is because the tense is past.
>> 
>> For the 'destroy' admin state, since we didn't have any operation state of a 
>> destroyed virtual machine (that is same as the shutdown operation state), we 
>> didn't pay any attention to the naming.  I can live with either destroy(5) 
>> or destroyed(5).  It is a matter of taste to me.
> 
> I think destroy(5) sounds better, but I'll admit it is a nit.
> 
>> 
>> 
>>> NIT (maybe a minor issue): VirtualMachineAutoStart:
>>> 
>>> Again, tense.  Here, I think past tense works best since we decided this 
>>> would reflect a read-only state.  I think enabled and disabled work best.
>> 
>> Do you mean changing the name to something like 
>> 'VirtualMachineAutoStartEnabled'?  Here again, I don't have any strong 
>> opinion on this.  I am open to change the name, if most people agree on this.
> 
> No, TC stays the same, but the tense of the states should change to:
> 
> unknown(1)
> enabled(2)
> disabled(3)
> 
> Since the associated object is now read-only.
> 
> Joe
> 
>> 
>> Regards,
>> ---
>> Keiichi SHIMA (島 慶一)
>> WIDE project <[email protected]>
>> Research Laboratory, IIJ Innovation Institute, Inc <[email protected]>
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> On 2013/10/15, at 23:42, Joe Marcus Clarke <[email protected]> wrote:
>> 
>>> On 10/13/13 11:05 PM, Hirochika Asai wrote:
>>>> Hi folks,
>>>> 
>>>> Thanks to comments from the mailing list, we've uploaded new version
>>>> of our I-D: http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-asai-vmm-mib-05
>>>> 
>>>> We would like to submit our I-D as a working group draft soon and
>>>> have a discussion in the next IETF as a working group draft.
>>>> Chairs, could you please poll for adoption as a working group item
>>>> on the mailing list?
>>>> 
>>>> I've already noticed an error: RFC4133 must be RFC6933.  Please let
>>>> us know if you find any other errors.  These errors will be
>>>> corrected in the next version (the first version for working group
>>>> draft if adopted).
>>> 
>>> Overall, I like the changes.  Thanks!
>>> 
>>> NIT: VirtualMachineAdminState:
>>> 
>>> The destroy(5) state really doesn't match in terms of tense.  What about 
>>> destroyed(5)?  That said, since this is something one can set, perhaps 
>>> present tense like run, pause, suspend, etc. make sense.
>>> 
>>> Thanks for fleshing out the state definitions :-).
>>> 
>>> NIT (maybe a minor issue): VirtualMachineAutoStart:
>>> 
>>> Again, tense.  Here, I think past tense works best since we decided this 
>>> would reflect a read-only state.  I think enabled and disabled work best.
>>> 
>>> In terms of the new notifications, why enumerate all states as 
>>> notifications?  My original comment suggested a single state change 
>>> notification where the new and previous state would be available as objects 
>>> (note: this would require the definition of a previous state object).  It 
>>> just seems like the way you've implemented it would be harder to scale if 
>>> new states need to be added in the future.
>>> 
>>> Joe
>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> Here, I summarize the updates from the previous version.
>>>> 
>>>> * According to the thread Joe-1
>>>> Modified a paragraph as follows:
>>>> 
>>>> The design of this MIB module has been derived from enterprise
>>>> specific MIB modules, namely a MIB module for managing guests of the
>>>> Xen hypervisor, a MIB module for managing virtual machines controlled
>>>> by the VMware hypervisor, and a MIB module using the libvirt
>>>> programming interface to access different hypervisors.
>>>> + However, this MIB module attempts to generalize
>>>> + the managed objects to support other hypervisors.
>>>> 
>>>> * According to the thread Joe-2
>>>> Added description of an example of hypervisor-specific case
>>>> using ENTITY-MIB, but not modified the MIB definition.
>>>> 
>>>> * According to the thread Joe-3
>>>>  vmAutoStart --> read-only
>>>>  vmCur* --> read-write
>>>>  vm*Mem vm*Cpu --> description w/ MUST NOT: "Changes to these objects MUST 
>>>> NOT persist"
>>>> 
>>>> * According to the thread Joe-5
>>>> For the network portion of the hypervisor, added a note on a case
>>>> equipping virtual switches on the hypervisor as follows:
>>>>    The objects related to virtual switches
>>>>    are not also included in this MIB module
>>>>    though virtual switches shall be placed on a hypervisor.
>>>>    This is because the virtual network interfaces are
>>>>    the lowest abstraction of network resources allocated
>>>>    to a virtual machine.
>>>>    Instead of including the objects related to virtual switches,
>>>>    for example, <xref target="RFC4188">BRIDGE-MIB</xref>
>>>>    and <xref target="RFC4363">Q-BRIDGE-MIB</xref> could be used.
>>>> 
>>>> * According to the thread Joe-7
>>>> Added Notifications for shuttingDown, resuming suspending, migrating, and 
>>>> blocked
>>>> # I think we still need discussion at this point.
>>>> 
>>>> * Others
>>>> Modified VirtualMachineOperState to be more clear.
>>>> Revised the description of VirtualMachine*Index.
>>>> Fixed some typos.
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> Best regards,
>>>> Hirochika
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> Begin forwarded message:
>>>> 
>>>>> From: [email protected]
>>>>> Subject: New Version Notification for draft-asai-vmm-mib-05.txt
>>>>> Date: October 13, 2013 3:19:14 PM GMT+09:00
>>>>> To: Yuji Sekiya <[email protected]>, Cathy Zhou <[email protected]>, 
>>>>> Tina Tsou <[email protected]>, Keiichi Shima 
>>>>> <[email protected]>, Juergen Schoenwaelder 
>>>>> <[email protected]>, Michael MacFaden 
>>>>> <[email protected]>, Hirochika Asai <[email protected]>, Hiroshi Esaki 
>>>>> <[email protected]>
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> A new version of I-D, draft-asai-vmm-mib-05.txt
>>>>> has been successfully submitted by Hirochika Asai and posted to the
>>>>> IETF repository.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Filename:  draft-asai-vmm-mib
>>>>> Revision:  05
>>>>> Title:             Management Information Base for Virtual Machines 
>>>>> Controlled by a Hypervisor
>>>>> Creation date:     2013-10-13
>>>>> Group:             Individual Submission
>>>>> Number of pages: 56
>>>>> URL:             
>>>>> http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-asai-vmm-mib-05.txt
>>>>> Status:          http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-asai-vmm-mib
>>>>> Htmlized:        http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-asai-vmm-mib-05
>>>>> Diff:            http://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-asai-vmm-mib-05
>>>>> 
>>>>> Abstract:
>>>>>   This document defines a portion of the Management Information Base
>>>>>   (MIB) for use with network management protocols in the Internet
>>>>>   community.  In particular, this specifies objects for managing
>>>>>   virtual machines controlled by a hypervisor (a.k.a. virtual machine
>>>>>   monitor).
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of 
>>>>> submission
>>>>> until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org.
>>>>> 
>>>>> The IETF Secretariat
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> --
>>> Joe Marcus Clarke, CCIE #5384,         |          |
>>> SCJP, SCSA, SCNA, SCSECA, VCP        |||||      |||||
>>> Distinguished Services Engineer ..:|||||||||::|||||||||:..
>>> Phone: +1 (919) 392-2867         c i s c o  S y s t e m s
>>> Email: [email protected]
>>> 
>>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> OPSAWG mailing list
>>> [email protected]
>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg
>> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> Joe Marcus Clarke, CCIE #5384,         |          |
> SCJP, SCSA, SCNA, SCSECA, VCP        |||||      |||||
> Distinguished Services Engineer ..:|||||||||::|||||||||:..
> Phone: +1 (919) 392-2867         c i s c o  S y s t e m s
> Email: [email protected]
> 
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------

_______________________________________________
OPSAWG mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg

Reply via email to