[Ips] WG Last Call review: draft-ietf-ips-iscsi-nodearch-key-01.txt
Black_David@emc.com Wed, 27 September 2006 21:15 UTC
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1GSgkD-0002Xf-T8; Wed, 27 Sep 2006 17:15:05 -0400
Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1GSgkC-0002Wk-MT for ips@ietf.org; Wed, 27 Sep 2006 17:15:04 -0400
Received: from mexforward.lss.emc.com ([128.222.32.20]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1GSgkA-0002Lu-AT for ips@ietf.org; Wed, 27 Sep 2006 17:15:04 -0400
Received: from mailhub.lss.emc.com (nirah.lss.emc.com [10.254.144.13]) by mexforward.lss.emc.com (Switch-3.1.8/Switch-3.1.7) with ESMTP id k8RLEv8P013920 for <ips@ietf.org>; Wed, 27 Sep 2006 17:14:59 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from corpussmtp4.corp.emc.com (corpussmtp4.corp.emc.com [10.254.64.54]) by mailhub.lss.emc.com (Switch-3.1.8/Switch-3.1.7) with ESMTP id k8RLEqvb019082 for <ips@ietf.org>; Wed, 27 Sep 2006 17:14:55 -0400 (EDT)
From: Black_David@emc.com
Received: from CORPUSMX20A.corp.emc.com ([128.221.62.13]) by corpussmtp4.corp.emc.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.0); Wed, 27 Sep 2006 17:14:32 -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: Wed, 27 Sep 2006 17:14:32 -0400
Message-ID: <F222151D3323874393F83102D614E05502B67438@CORPUSMX20A.corp.emc.com>
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
Thread-Topic: WG Last Call review: draft-ietf-ips-iscsi-nodearch-key-01.txt
Thread-Index: Acbiee0bIkqUfCE7Qd2n4Z5JgQqIfw==
To: ips@ietf.org
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 27 Sep 2006 21:14:32.0848 (UTC) FILETIME=[ED669100:01C6E279]
X-PMX-Version: 4.7.1.128075, Antispam-Engine: 2.4.0.264935, Antispam-Data: 2006.9.27.135442
X-PerlMx-Spam: Gauge=, SPAM=0%, Reason='EMC_BODY_1+ -3, EMC_FROM_0+ -2, NO_REAL_NAME 0, __C230066_P5 0, __CP_NOT_1 0, __CT 0, __CTE 0, __CTYPE_CHARSET_QUOTED 0, __CT_TEXT_PLAIN 0, __FRAUD_419_REFNUM 0, __HAS_MSGID 0, __IMS_MSGID 0, __MIME_TEXT_ONLY 0, __MIME_VERSION 0, __SANE_MSGID 0, __STOCK_PHRASE_24 0'
X-Spam-Score: 0.2 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: 37af5f8fbf6f013c5b771388e24b09e7
Subject: [Ips] WG Last Call review: draft-ietf-ips-iscsi-nodearch-key-01.txt
X-BeenThere: ips@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: IP Storage <ips.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ips>, <mailto:ips-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:ips@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ips-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ips>, <mailto:ips-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: ips-bounces@ietf.org
I found a bunch of editorial nits, plus a need to correct a registry problem at IANA. Please do not revise this draft until WG Last Call is complete (next week). As I read this draft now, I'd prefer 'Node Architecture' to be replaced by 'Node Implementation', but I think we're entirely too far along for for that sort of change, so I can live with 'Architecture'. Section 1.2: This Internet-Draft describes a declarative Public Extension Key as defined by section 12.22 of RFC 3720 [2] that may be used to communicate additional iSCSI node information to the opposite node in a session. 'opposite' --> 'peer' The information carried in the described key has been found to be valuable in real iSCSI customer environments as initiator and target vendors collaborate to resolve technical issues and better understand the evolving iSCSI market. 'evolving iSCSI market' --> 'interaction of iSCSI implementations' FWIW, 'market' is a dangerous word to use in any protocol standard. The key has been modeled after the "Server" and "User-Agent" header fields as specified in sections 14.38 and 14.43 of RFC 2616 [3] Insert 'HTTP' before '"Server"' for clarity. The key MUST NOT be used by iSCSI nodes for interoperability, or exclusion or deception of other nodes. Explain or remove 'deception'. Section 2: The key is defined with a Use of "LO", making it a Leading Only key, and does not amend sections 11 or 12 of RFC 3720 [2]. 'amend' --> 'modify' Section 3: Nodes implementing this key may choose to only transmit the key, only 'may' --> 'MAY' This change doesn't make much difference, but it does call attention to this important sentence. Nodes that implement transmission and/or logging of the key values may also implement switches which disable and/or change the logging and key transmission detail (see Security Considerations). 'switches which' -> 'administrative mechanisms that' 'switches' will be misread as being akin to 'Ethernet switches' ;-), and 'which' needs to be replaced by 'that'. Thus, a valid implementation of this key may be that a node is completely silent (the node does not transmit any key value, and simply discards any key values it receives). I think this needs to also say 'without issuing a NotUnderstood response' at the end of the parenthetical discussion of discarding received values. This helps line up with the previous paragraph, and makes it clear how silence qualifies as support. Section 4: The choice of which countermeasure is most appropriate depends on the environment. However, the first countermeasure may be acceptable in many environments, since it provides a compromise between sending too much information and the other more complete countermeasures of not sending the key at all or using IPsec. I think this should say 'However, the latter countermeasure'. Recheck this text with respect to the immediately preceding paragraph in the draft. Section 5: Oops - looking at the IANA registry, it looks like IANA didn't set it up correctly - the registry contains Number, Extension Key, and Reference - it should contain Key Name, Description, and Reference. Ultimately, some combination of Lars (AD) and yours truly (WG chair) are going to have to work this out with IANA, but let's put some text in this draft telling IANA what should be done, so that they'll know to ask. Please add the following text: The IANA iSCSI Extended Key registry does not correspond to RFC 3720 that defined it. The registry should contain three fields for each extended key: - Key Name - Description - Reference IANA should modify the registry accordingly, and then register this key as follows: - Key Name: X#NodeArchitecture - Description: Node architecture details - Reference: [this RFC-to-be] -- RFC Editor: This paragraph (starting from "The IANA iSCSI Extended Key" should be removed prior to RFC publication. Thanks, --David ---------------------------------------------------- David L. Black, Senior Technologist 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 ---------------------------------------------------- _______________________________________________ Ips mailing list Ips@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ips