Re: [storm] WG Last Call comments on consolidated iSCSI draft

I am having a little bit of difficulty following the logic of the
proposed new text.

First it says that some initiator implementations use ACA (which
implies that some do not). Then, it says that iSCSI initiators
(presumably all iSCSI initiators) ... SHOULD support ACA.

I can understand why initiators that need ACA SHOULD support it,
but why should the others bear the burden?

All the best,

.Ralph

On 8/27/2011 5:36 PM, david.black@emc.com wrote:
> <WG chair hat off>
>
> In that case, let's at least get the explanation for the SHOULD right ;-).
>
> Here's a suggestion ...
>
> OLD
>    ACA helps preserve ordered command execution in the presence of
>    errors. As iSCSI can have many commands in-flight between
>    initiator and target, iSCSI initiators and targets SHOULD support
>    ACA.
> NEW
>    Some SCSI initiator implementations use ACA to enforce ordered
>    command execution during recovery from errors.  In order to support
>    error recovery in such SCSI initiators, iSCSI initiators and targets
>    SHOULD support ACA.
>
> Thanks,
> --David
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Knight, Frederick [mailto:Frederick.Knight@netapp.com]
>> Sent: Friday, August 26, 2011 8:51 AM
>> To: Black, David
>> Cc: storm@ietf.org
>> Subject: RE: [storm] WG Last Call comments on consolidated iSCSI draft
>>
>> I disagree.
>>
>> 1) while not common, the hosts that use it, do need it;
>> 2) the original 3720 text contains a SHOULD; and
>> 3) there is no good reason for us to be weakening this statement.
>>
>> 	Fred Knight
>> 	NetApp
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: david.black@emc.com [mailto:david.black@emc.com]
>> Sent: Thursday, August 25, 2011 5:55 PM
>> To: storm@ietf.org
>> Subject: [storm] WG Last Call comments on consolidated iSCSI draft
>>
>> <...text removed...>
>>
>> [D] Section 10.2 contains a "SHOULD" requirement for ACA
>> (Auto-Contingent Allegiance) support.
>> As ACA support in SCSI initiators is not common, I suggest weakening
>> this to a MAY requirement.
>>
>>
> _______________________________________________
> storm mailing list
> storm@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/storm
>
>