Re: [storm] Gen-ART Review of draft-ietf-storm-iscsimib-03.txt

"Prakash Venkatesen, ERS-HCLTech" <> Tue, 02 April 2013 16:53 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id E9CEE21F8712; Tue, 2 Apr 2013 09:53:18 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.599
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id EJDxhXgM4rhG; Tue, 2 Apr 2013 09:53:17 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9926B21F870F; Tue, 2 Apr 2013 09:53:16 -0700 (PDT)
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.87,394,1363113000"; d="scan'208";a="10111419"
Received: from unknown (HELO CHN-CORP-HT01.CORP.HCL.IN) ([]) by with ESMTP/TLS/AES128-SHA; 02 Apr 2013 22:21:37 +0530
Received: from CHN-HCLT-HT03.HCLT.CORP.HCL.IN ( by CHN-CORP-HT01.CORP.HCL.IN ( with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.2.318.1; Tue, 2 Apr 2013 22:23:13 +0530
Received: from CHN-HCLT-EVS16.HCLT.CORP.HCL.IN ([]) by CHN-HCLT-HT03.HCLT.CORP.HCL.IN ([::1]) with mapi; Tue, 2 Apr 2013 22:23:13 +0530
From: "Prakash Venkatesen, ERS-HCLTech" <>
To: "Romascanu, Dan (Dan)" <>, "" <>
Date: Tue, 2 Apr 2013 22:23:13 +0530
Thread-Topic: Gen-ART Review of draft-ietf-storm-iscsimib-03.txt
Thread-Index: Ac38ru1wNGisP6GHRvWY2E+60/tmIwzEpz/h
Message-ID: <62DC16C614A9554F81C8E2E5C174A98838DA0C7742@CHN-HCLT-EVS16.HCLT.CORP.HCL.IN>
References: <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
acceptlanguage: en-US
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Cc: "" <>
Subject: Re: [storm] Gen-ART Review of draft-ietf-storm-iscsimib-03.txt
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Storage Maintenance WG <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 02 Apr 2013 16:53:19 -0000

Hi Dan,
I have posted an updated version of the draft:

All the review comments from Gen-ART review have been incorporated. Please note my comments inline, marked Prakash>.


From: Romascanu, Dan (Dan) []
Sent: Sunday, January 27, 2013 10:35 PM
Cc: Prakash Venkatesen, ERS-HCLTech;;; Martin Stiemerling;
Subject: Gen-ART Review of draft-ietf-storm-iscsimib-03.txt

(I missed one of the authors at the first send)

I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. For background on Gen-ART, please see the FAQ at <>gt;.

Please wait for direction from your document shepherd or AD before posting a new version of the draft.

Document: draft-ietf-storm-iscsimib-03.txt
Reviewer: Dan Romascanu
Review Date: 1/27/13
IETF LC End Date: 1/28/13
IESG Telechat date: (if known)

Summary: Almost Ready

Major issues:

1) This document will obsolete (when approved) RFC 4544, and add support for iSCSI protocol evolution according to the consolidated version of the iSCSI protocol (as per draft-ietf-storm-iscsi-cons) and for the updates to iSCSI (as per draft-ietf-storm-iscsi-sam) for ProtocolLevel. There is no indication however in for the operators when an upgrade is recommended or becomes mandatory, and which version of the protocol is to be used during the transition, function of the iSCSI versions of the protocol.

Prakash> As per rough consensus of STORM group, the new features are required when implementation supports a value of the iSCSIProtocolLevel key of 2 or greater. The new draft has this change.

2) A number of changes where agreed by the WG, as reflected in the message, according to which:

> In order to move forward, I suggest that the authors make the functional changes [1] - [6], not make changes [A] - [F] and [I}, and use their best judgment on what (if anything) to do about [G] and [H]

My understanding is that the changes [1]-[6] were implemented, and the authors applying their best judgment did not implement [G] and [H]. However, changes [1]-[6] are npt reflected in Section 5.

Prakash> Fixed this in the new draft: updated Section 5.

3) I did not perform a MIB Doctor review of the document. I notice however that the text Security Considerations section and the corresponding references do not conform to the latest version of the guidelines for the Security Considerations sections in MIB documents, as per

Prakash> Fixed this in the new draft: updated Security Considerations section.

Minor issues:

Nits/editorial comments:


The contents of this e-mail and any attachment(s) are confidential and intended for the named recipient(s) only.
E-mail transmission is not guaranteed to be secure or error-free as information could be intercepted, corrupted,
lost, destroyed, arrive late or incomplete, or may contain viruses in transmission. The e mail and its contents
(with or without referred errors) shall therefore not attach any liability on the originator or HCL or its affiliates.
Views or opinions, if any, presented in this email are solely those of the author and may not necessarily reflect the
views or opinions of HCL or its affiliates. Any form of reproduction, dissemination, copying, disclosure, modification,
distribution and / or publication of this message without the prior written consent of authorized representative of
HCL is strictly prohibited. If you have received this email in error please delete it and notify the sender immediately.
Before opening any email and/or attachments, please check them for viruses and other defects.