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

"Romascanu, Dan (Dan)" <dromasca@avaya.com> Wed, 03 April 2013 12:20 UTC

Return-Path: <dromasca@avaya.com>
X-Original-To: storm@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: storm@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5783E21F8554; Wed, 3 Apr 2013 05:20:28 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -103.581
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-103.581 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.018, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id HIcSh4fY+9Xy; Wed, 3 Apr 2013 05:20:27 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from de307622-de-outbound.net.avaya.com (de307622-de-outbound.net.avaya.com [198.152.71.100]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A094321F8548; Wed, 3 Apr 2013 05:20:26 -0700 (PDT)
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AgIFAFupNVHGmAcF/2dsb2JhbABEgma/boEEFnOCHwEBAQEDEig/DAQCAQgNBAQBAQsUCQcyFAkIAQEEAQ0FCBqHcQGhVZ0gjUsQDXMmCwcGgllhA5xkilSDCIFrBxce
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.84,786,1355115600"; d="scan'208";a="4030412"
Received: from unknown (HELO co300216-co-erhwest.avaya.com) ([198.152.7.5]) by de307622-de-outbound.net.avaya.com with ESMTP; 03 Apr 2013 08:20:24 -0400
Received: from unknown (HELO AZ-FFEXHC03.global.avaya.com) ([135.64.58.13]) by co300216-co-erhwest-out.avaya.com with ESMTP; 03 Apr 2013 08:17:59 -0400
Received: from AZ-FFEXMB04.global.avaya.com ([fe80::6db7:b0af:8480:c126]) by AZ-FFEXHC03.global.avaya.com ([135.64.58.13]) with mapi id 14.02.0328.009; Wed, 3 Apr 2013 08:20:22 -0400
From: "Romascanu, Dan (Dan)" <dromasca@avaya.com>
To: "Prakash Venkatesen, ERS-HCLTech" <prakashvn@hcl.com>, "gen-art@ietf.org" <gen-art@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: Gen-ART Review of draft-ietf-storm-iscsimib-03.txt
Thread-Index: Ac38ru1wNGisP6GHRvWY2E+60/tmIwzEpz/hACbySkAAASBrEgAA673g
Date: Wed, 3 Apr 2013 12:20:22 +0000
Message-ID: <9904FB1B0159DA42B0B887B7FA8119CA0C08D2@AZ-FFEXMB04.global.avaya.com>
References: <9904FB1B0159DA42B0B887B7FA8119CA07867E@AZ-FFEXMB04.global.avaya.com> <62DC16C614A9554F81C8E2E5C174A98838DA0C7742@CHN-HCLT-EVS16.HCLT.CORP.HCL.IN>, <9904FB1B0159DA42B0B887B7FA8119CA0C06C6@AZ-FFEXMB04.global.avaya.com> <62DC16C614A9554F81C8E2E5C174A98838DA0C7744@CHN-HCLT-EVS16.HCLT.CORP.HCL.IN>
In-Reply-To: <62DC16C614A9554F81C8E2E5C174A98838DA0C7744@CHN-HCLT-EVS16.HCLT.CORP.HCL.IN>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [135.64.58.46]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Wed, 03 Apr 2013 10:17:35 -0700
Cc: "storm@ietf.org" <storm@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [storm] Gen-ART Review of draft-ietf-storm-iscsimib-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, 03 Apr 2013 12:20:29 -0000

Hi Prakash,

Thanks for this further clarification. 

>From my perspective the document is Ready. 

Regards,

Dan




> -----Original Message-----
> From: Prakash Venkatesen, ERS-HCLTech [mailto:prakashvn@hcl.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, April 03, 2013 3:16 PM
> To: Romascanu, Dan (Dan); gen-art@ietf.org
> Cc: mark_bakke@dell.com; david.black@emc.com; Martin Stiemerling;
> storm@ietf.org
> Subject: RE: Gen-ART Review of draft-ietf-storm-iscsimib-03.txt
> 
> Hi Dan,
> An RFC 4544 based implementation should continue to work. The value of
> iSCSIProtocolLevel to be 2 or higher is required to enable use of
> features in iSCSI SCSI Feature update (iscsi-sam). The new objects are
> required only when the iSCSIProtocolLevel is negotiated to 2 or higher.
> It is defined as a Conditionally mandatory group. Please note the
> corresponding portions of the MIB module below:
> --
> iscsiNewObjectsV2 OBJECT-GROUP
>     OBJECTS {
>         iscsiInstXNodeArchitecture,
>         iscsiSsnTaskReporting,
>         iscsiSsnProtocolLevel,
>         iscsiSsnNopReceivedPDUs,
>         iscsiSsnNopSentPDUs,
>         iscsiIntrLastTgtFailurePort,
>         iscsiTgtLastIntrFailurePort,
>         iscsiPortalDescr,
>         iscsiInstSsnTgtUnmappedErrors,
>         iscsiTgtLogoutCxnClosed,
>         iscsiTgtLogoutCxnRemoved
>     }
>     STATUS current
>     DESCRIPTION
>         "A collection of objects added in the second version of the
>         iSCSI MIB."
> --
>     GROUP iscsiNewObjectsV2
>     DESCRIPTION
>         "This group is mandatory for all iSCSI implementations
>         that support a value of the iSCSIProtocolLevel key of
>         2 or greater."
> --
> When an implementation is upgraded to enable using the features of
> iscsi-sam, it should start using the new MIB module as well. Until then,
> the new objects are not required.
> 
> regards
> Prakash
> 
> ________________________________________
> From: Romascanu, Dan (Dan) [dromasca@avaya.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, April 03, 2013 5:01 PM
> To: Prakash Venkatesen, ERS-HCLTech; gen-art@ietf.org
> Cc: mark_bakke@dell.com; david.black@emc.com; Martin Stiemerling;
> storm@ietf.org
> Subject: RE: Gen-ART Review of draft-ietf-storm-iscsimib-03.txt
> 
> Hi Prakash,
> 
> Thank you for addressing the issues raised in the Gen-ART review. The
> changes made on issues 2 and 3 are fine, however, one clarification is
> still needed regarding the first issue. See below (agreed stuff
> deleted).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Prakash Venkatesen, ERS-HCLTech [mailto:prakashvn@hcl.com]
> >
> > 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.
> >
> 
> [[DR]] 'the new features are required' means that the MIB support MUST
> be updated accordingly when the iSCSI updates are deployed? In other
> words, would an RFC 4544 - based implementation break, or it will
> continue to work (with functional limitations) until the updated MIB
> version is introduced?
> 
> Thanks and Regards,
> 
> Dan
> 
> 
> ::DISCLAIMER::
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> ----
> 
> 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.
> 
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> ----