Re: [Ips] iSCSI-specific unit attention conditions
Black_David@emc.com Sat, 04 April 2009 03:18 UTC
Return-Path: <Black_David@emc.com>
X-Original-To: ips@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ips@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A7ADD3A6869 for <ips@core3.amsl.com>; Fri, 3 Apr 2009 20:18:44 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.55
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.55 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.049, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id UrXXnoKvibCK for <ips@core3.amsl.com>; Fri, 3 Apr 2009 20:18:43 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mexforward.lss.emc.com (mexforward.lss.emc.com [128.222.32.20]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7DA733A6805 for <ips@ietf.org>; Fri, 3 Apr 2009 20:18:43 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from hop04-l1d11-si01.isus.emc.com (HOP04-L1D11-SI01.isus.emc.com [10.254.111.54]) by mexforward.lss.emc.com (Switch-3.2.5/Switch-3.1.7) with ESMTP id n343Jgn9011060 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Fri, 3 Apr 2009 23:19:43 -0400 (EDT)
From: Black_David@emc.com
Received: from mailhub.lss.emc.com (numailhub.lss.emc.com [10.254.144.16]) by hop04-l1d11-si01.isus.emc.com (Tablus Interceptor); Fri, 3 Apr 2009 23:19:28 -0400
Received: from corpussmtp3.corp.emc.com (corpussmtp3.corp.emc.com [10.254.64.53]) by mailhub.lss.emc.com (Switch-3.3.2/Switch-3.3.2) with ESMTP id n343JR0X004479; Fri, 3 Apr 2009 23:19:27 -0400
Received: from CORPUSMX80A.corp.emc.com ([10.254.89.202]) by corpussmtp3.corp.emc.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Fri, 3 Apr 2009 23:19:27 -0400
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5
Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Date: Fri, 03 Apr 2009 23:19:26 -0400
Message-ID: <9FA859626025B64FBC2AF149D97C944A024FF25F@CORPUSMX80A.corp.emc.com>
In-reply-to: <1345AC4A6B8AB74BB5211396D84C746D01ADD77B@ausx3mpc109.aus.amer.dell.com>
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
Thread-Topic: [Ips] iSCSI-specific unit attention conditions
Thread-Index: Acmy4bP4cvpmWgG5S1GjUaf5wa5pJwAAfJEAAHl4VdAAAmH+cA==
References: <18899.36208.525150.683459@pkoning-laptop.equallogic.com><AC32D7C72530234288643DD5F1435D530445C9AB@RTPMVEXC1-PRD.hq.netapp.com> <1345AC4A6B8AB74BB5211396D84C746D01ADD77B@ausx3mpc109.aus.amer.dell.com>
To: Kevin_Marks@Dell.com
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 04 Apr 2009 03:19:27.0546 (UTC) FILETIME=[294899A0:01C9B4D4]
X-EMM-EM: Active
Cc: ips@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Ips] iSCSI-specific unit attention conditions
X-BeenThere: ips@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: IP Storage <ips.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ips>, <mailto:ips-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ips>
List-Post: <mailto:ips@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ips-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ips>, <mailto:ips-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 04 Apr 2009 03:18:44 -0000
If retirement is in order, renaming the to-be-retired codes as vendor-specific to protect their existing usage may suffice. I believe the original proposer of these codes will be sending a message to this list to explain what the codes were intended for and why. Thanks, --David ---------------------------------------------------- David L. Black, Distinguished Engineer 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: ips-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:ips-bounces@ietf.org] On > Behalf Of Kevin_Marks@Dell.com > Sent: Friday, April 03, 2009 10:05 PM > To: Frederick.Knight@netapp.com; Paul_Koning@Dell.com; > dcuddihy@attotech.com > Cc: ips@ietf.org > Subject: Re: [Ips] iSCSI-specific unit attention conditions > > Fred, > > Whether in use or not, in my ten years of doing T10, I have > never seen an ASC/Q go obsolete. > > Kevin > > > -----Original Message----- > From: ips-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:ips-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of > Knight, Frederick > Sent: Wednesday, April 01, 2009 11:23 AM > To: Koning, Paul; dcuddihy@attotech.com > Cc: ips@ietf.org > Subject: Re: [Ips] iSCSI-specific unit attention conditions > > I've tracked down the people involved in the original 2005 > T10 proposal, > and I will try to get them involved (if I can't, I'll at least share > what I discover). > > T10 will be reluctant to retire these values if they are in use. > > As mentioned, the use we see for the "ADDRESS CHANGED" event > is to cause > a new discovery process to be initiated (to go find any changes). > > Fred > > -----Original Message----- > From: Paul Koning [mailto:Paul_Koning@Dell.com] > Sent: Wednesday, April 01, 2009 11:51 AM > To: dcuddihy@attotech.com > Cc: Knight, Frederick; ips@ietf.org > Subject: Re: [Ips] iSCSI-specific unit attention conditions > > >>>>> "dcuddihy" == dcuddihy <dcuddihy@attotech.com> writes: > > dcuddihy> It seems to me that the more important question is how > dcuddihy> useful these unit attention codes are. (For example, > dcuddihy> ATTO's Xtend San initiator doesn't make use of them.) If > dcuddihy> initiators don't care about this information, precisely > dcuddihy> defining these unit attention codes (instead of depricating > dcuddihy> them) will be a change for the worse. > > That's one of my concerns. > > It seems we're just speculating what purpose these codes were intended > to serve. Not only don't we know for sure what that purpose was, we > also don't know if that purpose is actually achieved. > > The other concern is that these codes could be interpreted to impose a > new requirement on targets to generate them in certain situations. Of > course we don't know what those situations are, or why targets should > do this, but clearly someone could argue that those numbers exist and > therefore are supposed to be generated. > > Unless there is a solid proposal that assigns a clear meaning, and > that meaning is valuable to initiators, I believe that the only > correct answer is to consider what happened as a glitch in the > standards process and remove, to the extent possible, the debris left > behind by that glitch. > > I don't see anything in the recent discussion that gets us to this > clear meaning and useful purpose. In particular, I see absolutely NO > trace of "rough consensus and running code" to support the notion that > the iSCSI standard should support these new codes. > > David, can we put in motion the deprecation of these codes? > > paul > > _______________________________________________ > Ips mailing list > Ips@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ips > _______________________________________________ > Ips mailing list > Ips@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ips > >
- [Ips] iSCSI-specific unit attention conditions Black_David
- Re: [Ips] iSCSI-specific unit attention conditions Paul Koning
- Re: [Ips] iSCSI-specific unit attention conditions Black_David
- Re: [Ips] iSCSI-specific unit attention conditions Paul Koning
- Re: [Ips] iSCSI-specific unit attention conditions Paul Koning
- Re: [Ips] iSCSI-specific unit attention conditions brown_David1
- Re: [Ips] iSCSI-specific unit attention conditions Knight, Frederick
- Re: [Ips] iSCSI-specific unit attention conditions Knight, Frederick
- Re: [Ips] iSCSI-specific unit attention conditions dcuddihy
- Re: [Ips] iSCSI-specific unit attention conditions Paul Koning
- Re: [Ips] iSCSI-specific unit attention conditions Knight, Frederick
- Re: [Ips] iSCSI-specific unit attention conditions Kevin_Marks
- Re: [Ips] iSCSI-specific unit attention conditions Black_David
- Re: [Ips] iSCSI-specific unit attention conditions Bill Galloway
- Re: [Ips] iSCSI-specific unit attention conditions Julian Satran
- Re: [Ips] iSCSI-specific unit attention conditions Ralph Weber