[storm] Comments on draft-ietf-storm-iscsi-sam-03.txt

Tom Talpey <ttalpey@microsoft.com> Wed, 13 July 2011 14:21 UTC

Return-Path: <ttalpey@microsoft.com>
X-Original-To: storm@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: storm@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BC5B321F88CE for <storm@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 13 Jul 2011 07:21:23 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -110.599
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-110.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Y3VuIMtYG4dV for <storm@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 13 Jul 2011 07:21:23 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtp.microsoft.com (mailb.microsoft.com []) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0B42511E807E for <storm@ietf.org>; Wed, 13 Jul 2011 07:21:22 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from TK5EX14HUBC102.redmond.corp.microsoft.com ( by TK5-EXGWY-E802.partners.extranet.microsoft.com ( with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id; Wed, 13 Jul 2011 07:21:21 -0700
Received: from TK5EX14MBXC111.redmond.corp.microsoft.com ([]) by TK5EX14HUBC102.redmond.corp.microsoft.com ([]) with mapi id 14.01.0323.002; Wed, 13 Jul 2011 07:21:21 -0700
From: Tom Talpey <ttalpey@microsoft.com>
To: "Frederick.Knight@netapp.com" <Frederick.Knight@netapp.com>, "storm@ietf.org" <storm@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: Comments on draft-ietf-storm-iscsi-sam-03.txt
Thread-Index: AcxBZwzvVGfG7hhLTh+MiHwcBVZYEw==
Date: Wed, 13 Jul 2011 14:21:20 +0000
Message-ID: <F83812DF4B59B9499C1BC978336D91745EE0272F@TK5EX14MBXC111.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
x-originating-ip: []
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Subject: [storm] Comments on draft-ietf-storm-iscsi-sam-03.txt
X-BeenThere: storm@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Storage Maintenance WG <storm.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/storm>, <mailto:storm-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/storm>
List-Post: <mailto:storm@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:storm-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/storm>, <mailto:storm-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 13 Jul 2011 14:21:23 -0000

Several initial comments on the Abstract:

>  Internet Small Computer Systems Interface (iSCSI) is a SCSI
>  transport protocol that maps the SCSI family of protocols onto
>  TCP/IP. RFC 3720 defines the iSCSI protocol. The current
 > iSCSI protocol (RFC 3720 and RFC 5048) is based on the SAM-2
 > version of the SCSI family of protocols). This document
 > defines additions and changes to the iSCSI protocol to enabled
 > additional features that were added to the SCSI family of
 > protocols through SAM-3, SAM-4, and SAM-5.
>  This document updates RFC 3720 and RFC 5048 and the text in
>  this document supersedes the text in RFC 3720 and RFC 5048
>  when the two differ.

1) Recommend deleting the second sentence "RFC3720 defines the iSCSI protocol". It's in contradiction with the third sentence, and is only historically correct.

2) Delete the word "current" in the third sentence, as it will become obsolete. Perhaps reword as "The iSCSI protocol as specified in RFC3720 and RFC5048 is based on the SAM-2...". Also note there is a mismatched ")" at the end.

3) The fourth sentence says "added ... through SAM-3, SAM-4 and SAM-5". This is a very general statement, and seems too strong. Also note the typo "enabled". How about "This document defines extensions to the iSCSI protocol to support certain additional features of the SCSI protocol defined in SAM-3, SAM-4 and SAM-5."
4) The last sentence is unclear on which "two" differ - 3720 differs from 5048? Current document differs from 3720? Current document differs from both? Also, "supersede" is definitely too strong - there is no requirement made to support these higher SAM levels. Suggest simply saying that the document "updates" both RFC3720 and RFC5048, and let the body of the text sort out the applicability.

  But, an overall question. Should this applicability statement be instead made to the new consolidated draft? This document will apply in general, not merely to RFC3720/5048.