[Ips] iSCSI-specific unit attention conditions

Black_David@emc.com Mon, 30 March 2009 14:24 UTC

Return-Path: <Black_David@emc.com>
X-Original-To: ips@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ips@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9BFEC28C0EF for <ips@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 30 Mar 2009 07:24:25 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -5.669
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.669 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.929, BAYES_20=-0.74, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id zQNdN0f53vjN for <ips@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 30 Mar 2009 07:24:24 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mexforward.lss.emc.com (mexforward.lss.emc.com []) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7692C3A6B97 for <ips@ietf.org>; Mon, 30 Mar 2009 07:24:24 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from hop04-l1d11-si01.isus.emc.com (HOP04-L1D11-SI01.isus.emc.com []) by mexforward.lss.emc.com (Switch-3.2.5/Switch-3.1.7) with ESMTP id n2UEPL0i022597 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for <ips@ietf.org>; Mon, 30 Mar 2009 10:25:21 -0400 (EDT)
From: Black_David@emc.com
Received: from mailhub.lss.emc.com (numailhub.lss.emc.com []) by hop04-l1d11-si01.isus.emc.com (Tablus Interceptor) for <ips@ietf.org>; Mon, 30 Mar 2009 10:25:15 -0400
Received: from corpussmtp3.corp.emc.com (corpussmtp3.corp.emc.com []) by mailhub.lss.emc.com (Switch-3.3.2/Switch-3.3.2) with ESMTP id n2UEPEHp017918 for <ips@ietf.org>; Mon, 30 Mar 2009 10:25:15 -0400
Received: from CORPUSMX80A.corp.emc.com ([]) by corpussmtp3.corp.emc.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Mon, 30 Mar 2009 10:25:12 -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: Mon, 30 Mar 2009 10:25:12 -0400
Message-ID: <9FA859626025B64FBC2AF149D97C944A023F8427@CORPUSMX80A.corp.emc.com>
Thread-Topic: iSCSI-specific unit attention conditions
Thread-Index: Acgq78Sj/fp6s3H2SpiLJatSdr0bxWGUT+yg
To: <ips@ietf.org>
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 30 Mar 2009 14:25:12.0574 (UTC) FILETIME=[564F69E0:01C9B143]
X-EMM-EM: Active
Subject: [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: Mon, 30 Mar 2009 14:24:25 -0000

Here's another piece of "housekeeping" for the new STORM WG-to-be
- I've been informed by a knowledgeable T10 participant that:

> T10 proposal 05-406 (from Bill Galloway, Pivot3) added 3
> iSCSI-specific unit attention condition additional sense codes
> in SPC-4:
> r0 used a more generic "DEVICE PORT ADDRESS" phrase, but r1
> changed that to "iSCSI IP ADDRESS" upon recommendation by the
> [T10] CAP WG.
> However, there is no mention in any standard of when these are
> used (unlike all the other unit attention conditions, whose causes
> are clearly defined).  With the accepted names, that belongs in
> iSCSI itself.
FWIW, these ASC/Q value pairs appear to have been added to SPC-4
without any cross-checking with the IETF, which would serve to
explain why there is no documentation anywhere about when or how
to use them.  Since these ASC/Qs are iSCSI-specific, that task
falls to the iSCSI specification(s), unless these ASC/Qs are
removed or have their names changed to no longer be iSCSI-specific.

- the "new features" STORM draft should explain how to use these
--- AND/OR ---
- discussion here and in the to-be-formed storm WG should generate
	a proposal to T10 about what should change and why.

If these ASC/Q pairs remain and remain iSCSI-specific, they may be
the first feature beyond SAM-4 that goes into the "new features"
STORM draft.

This situation was originally pointed out to me about a year ago,
and there was some private discussion at that time.  This is an
opportunity for the participants in that discussion to express
their views on what should be done and why (as we now have a vehicle
to document their use with iSCSI *if* we choose to do so). 

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