Re: [Ips] iSCSI-specific unit attention conditions
"Knight, Frederick" <Frederick.Knight@netapp.com> Tue, 31 March 2009 19:17 UTC
Return-Path: <Frederick.Knight@netapp.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 760D328C199 for <ips@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 31 Mar 2009 12:17:40 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -5.995
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.995 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.603, 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 M2+OWnnN+rFy for <ips@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 31 Mar 2009 12:17:39 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mx2.netapp.com (mx2.netapp.com [216.240.18.37]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8C3353A6DCC for <ips@ietf.org>; Tue, 31 Mar 2009 12:17:39 -0700 (PDT)
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.39,303,1235980800"; d="scan'208";a="148385170"
Received: from smtp2.corp.netapp.com ([10.57.159.114]) by mx2-out.netapp.com with ESMTP; 31 Mar 2009 12:18:39 -0700
Received: from sacrsexc1-prd.hq.netapp.com (sacrsexc1-prd.hq.netapp.com [10.99.115.27]) by smtp2.corp.netapp.com (8.13.1/8.13.1/NTAP-1.6) with ESMTP id n2VJIaSr024480; Tue, 31 Mar 2009 12:18:38 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from rtprsexc1-prd.hq.netapp.com ([10.100.161.114]) by sacrsexc1-prd.hq.netapp.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959); Tue, 31 Mar 2009 12:18:37 -0700
Received: from RTPMVEXC1-PRD.hq.netapp.com ([10.100.161.111]) by rtprsexc1-prd.hq.netapp.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959); Tue, 31 Mar 2009 15:18:32 -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: Tue, 31 Mar 2009 15:17:35 -0400
Message-ID: <AC32D7C72530234288643DD5F1435D530445C53C@RTPMVEXC1-PRD.hq.netapp.com>
In-Reply-To: <18898.26477.64898.577194@gargle.gargle.HOWL>
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
Thread-Topic: [Ips] iSCSI-specific unit attention conditions
Thread-Index: AcmyMnYPeHHqZjA+QBCYa8sO8ECKJQAAPBNQ
From: "Knight, Frederick" <Frederick.Knight@netapp.com>
To: Paul Koning <Paul_Koning@dell.com>, Black_David@emc.com
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 31 Mar 2009 19:18:32.0203 (UTC) FILETIME=[7AEB6DB0:01C9B235]
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Wed, 01 Apr 2009 08:01:43 -0700
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: Tue, 31 Mar 2009 19:17:40 -0000
My interpretation of the "update" part of the agenda was that SAM-4 was an example (and that we should also include SAM-3 and SAM-5 as part of the update list). Therefore, to add SPC to the update list is (in my opinion) within the scope for the SCSI Update portion of this project. Yes, it should be included in the charter (either specifically, or by making clear the broader interpretation of the "update"). There is no person advocating these ASC/Q codes. These are ALREADY APPROVED ASC/Q codes, and the person that caused them to become approved is no longer part of T10, nor is that company a part of T10 at this time, so it will be hard to find them and get them to do anything. In my opinion, we should define their use, and let the e-mail reviews make sure we get it right (or as good as we can). Partly because, contrary to the statement below, the causes of all unit attention conditions are not "clearly defined". Fred Knight -----Original Message----- From: Paul Koning [mailto:Paul_Koning@dell.com] Sent: Tuesday, March 31, 2009 2:57 PM To: Black_David@emc.com Cc: ips@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Ips] iSCSI-specific unit attention conditions >>>>> "Black" == Black David <Black_David@emc.com> writes: Black> Here's another piece of "housekeeping" for the new STORM Black> WG-to-be - I've been informed by a knowledgeable T10 Black> participant that: >> T10 proposal 05-406 (from Bill Galloway, Pivot3) added 3 >> iSCSI-specific unit attention condition additional sense codes in >> SPC-4: - 3Fh/12h iSCSI IP ADDRESS ADDED - 3Fh/13h iSCSI IP ADDRESS >> REMOVED - 3Fh/14h iSCSI IP ADDRESS CHANGED >> >> 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. Black> FWIW, these ASC/Q value pairs appear to have been added to Black> SPC-4 without any cross-checking with the IETF, which would Black> serve to explain why there is no documentation anywhere about Black> when or how to use them. Since these ASC/Qs are Black> iSCSI-specific, that task falls to the iSCSI specification(s), Black> unless these ASC/Qs are removed or have their names changed to Black> no longer be iSCSI-specific. Black> Hence: - the "new features" STORM draft should explain how to Black> use these ASC/Qs --- AND/OR --- - discussion here and in the Black> to-be-formed storm WG should generate a proposal to T10 about Black> what should change and why. I would suggest the following. 1. The person advocating these ASC/Q codes should propose a new work item for STORM to add this new feature. It first needs to be added to the charter, then a new I-D needs to be generated to describe it. It doesn't belong in the other work items because it's neither cleanup nor (as far as I can tell) SAM-4 support. 2. If #1 isn't done or the proposal doesn't receive WG consensus, STORM should generate a liaison request to T10 asking for these ASC/Q codes to be removed, or deprecated, or otherwise relabeled to make it clear that they are not defined by the iSCSI standard. paul _______________________________________________ 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