Re: [Ips] iSCSI-specific unit attention conditions

Kevin,

I suspect you will not see any ASC/Q codes going Obsolete
(or Vendor Specific) this time either.

My opinion is that the original assertion (i.e., that the
definition of an ASC/Q in SPC-x somehow obliges some standard
to define a usage for that value) will not pass muster with
the majority of the CAP working group.

I would not be surprised to find that more than 25% of the
currently defined ASC/Q values have no explicit mention in
any existing standard or working draft. I do not recall
Bill's proposal promising any such in-standard definition.
At the time Bill presented his request, the sense of CAP
favored defining ASC/Q values to provide useful information
(within reason, of course).

Clearly, CAP felt that Bill's request had merit. As of
yet, I have not heard (or read) sufficient justification
for reversing that action.

All the best,

.Ralph

Kevin_Marks@Dell.com wrote:
> 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
>
>
>
>   