Re: [storm] iSCSI SAM update: login key

<Black_David@emc.com> Tue, 30 March 2010 01:58 UTC

Return-Path: <Black_David@emc.com>
X-Original-To: storm@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: storm@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 363B73A683F for <storm@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 29 Mar 2010 18:58:48 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.74
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.74 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.729, BAYES_00=-2.599, DNS_FROM_OPENWHOIS=1.13, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id h0qX28k4tixx for <storm@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 29 Mar 2010 18:58:47 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mexforward.lss.emc.com (mexforward.lss.emc.com [128.222.32.20]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DCFA93A682E for <storm@ietf.org>; Mon, 29 Mar 2010 18:58:46 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from hop04-l1d11-si01.isus.emc.com (HOP04-L1D11-SI01.isus.emc.com [10.254.111.54]) by mexforward.lss.emc.com (Switch-3.3.2/Switch-3.1.7) with ESMTP id o2U1xE2P030906 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for <storm@ietf.org>; Mon, 29 Mar 2010 21:59:14 -0400
Received: from mailhub.lss.emc.com (nagas.lss.emc.com [10.254.144.15]) by hop04-l1d11-si01.isus.emc.com (RSA Interceptor) for <storm@ietf.org>; Mon, 29 Mar 2010 21:59:04 -0400
Received: from corpussmtp3.corp.emc.com (corpussmtp3.corp.emc.com [10.254.169.196]) by mailhub.lss.emc.com (Switch-3.4.2/Switch-3.3.2mp) with ESMTP id o2U1x4gd001421 for <storm@ietf.org>; Mon, 29 Mar 2010 21:59:04 -0400
Received: from CORPUSMX80B.corp.emc.com ([10.254.89.201]) by corpussmtp3.corp.emc.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959); Mon, 29 Mar 2010 21:59:03 -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: Mon, 29 Mar 2010 21:59:02 -0400
Message-ID: <C2D311A6F086424F99E385949ECFEBCB02163229@CORPUSMX80B.corp.emc.com>
In-Reply-To: <SNT131-ds5790403C32823DD1AD5C9A01F0@phx.gbl>
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
Thread-Topic: [storm] iSCSI SAM update: login key
thread-index: AcrNesNQXBi4mNKZSGyZtPIVDXtYAACIdeFgAAPkwBA=
References: <C2D311A6F086424F99E385949ECFEBCB021629C4@CORPUSMX80B.corp.emc.com> <SNT131-ds10A1204F54D78F9972EB8FA0220@phx.gbl> <C2D311A6F086424F99E385949ECFEBCB02162B43@CORPUSMX80B.corp.emc.com> <4BADAC54.10705@gmail.com> <SNT131-ds5790403C32823DD1AD5C9A01F0@phx.gbl>
From: <Black_David@emc.com>
To: <storm@ietf.org>
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 30 Mar 2010 01:59:03.0983 (UTC) FILETIME=[92ED4BF0:01CACFAC]
X-EMM-EM: Active
Cc: Black_David@emc.com
Subject: Re: [storm] iSCSI SAM update: login key
X-BeenThere: storm@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: Storage Maintenance WG <storm.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/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: Tue, 30 Mar 2010 01:58:48 -0000

<WG co-chair hat OFF>

We already have ErrorRecoveryLevel, so I don't see a problem with a
second key that ends in "Level".

Thanks,
--David


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Mallikarjun Chadalapaka [mailto:cbm@chadalapaka.com]
> Sent: Monday, March 29, 2010 8:15 PM
> To: 'Julian Satran'; Black, David
> Cc: storm@ietf.org
> Subject: RE: [storm] iSCSI SAM update: login key
> 
> OK, I then suggest iSCSIProtocolTier
> 
> I would be OK with iSCSIProtocolLevel as well.
> 
> Glad to see the consensus, thanks.
> 
> Mallikarjun
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Julian Satran [mailto:julian.satran@gmail.com]
> > Sent: Friday, March 26, 2010 11:57 PM
> > To: Black_David@emc.com
> > Cc: cbm@chadalapaka.com; storm@ietf.org
> > Subject: Re: [storm] iSCSI SAM update: login key
> >
> >   I would suggest gen instead of level (level has too much of a
value
> > connotation - at least it my part of the world :-))
> >
> > Julo
> >
> >
> > On 27/03/10 08:52, Black_David@emc.com wrote:
> > > Mallikarjun,
> > >
> > > That makes sense (decouple from PDU structure changes), and
suggests
> that we
> > need a key name that doesn't use "PDUFormat" ...
> > > ... How about iSCSIProtocolLevel ?
> > >
> > > It will be necessary to be conservative in defining new values -
the
> > requirement to publish a standards track RFC to define a new value
should
> help
> > with that.
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > > --David
> > >
> > >> -----Original Message-----
> > >> From: Mallikarjun Chadalapaka [mailto:cbm@chadalapaka.com]
> > >> Sent: Saturday, March 27, 2010 12:28 AM
> > >> To: Black, David; storm@ietf.org
> > >> Subject: RE: [storm] iSCSI SAM update: login key
> > >>
> > >>> This will be an IETF key whose values are assigned by IETF
standards
> > action
> > >>> (standards-track RFC); it is not linked to SAM versions (e.g., a
new
> > version
> > >>> of SAM is not a prerequisite to assigning the value 3).
> > >> Decoupling this key from SAM numbering space is a good idea.
> > >>
> > >> I also suggest decoupling it from PDU structure changes.  Any new
iSCSI
> > standards track RFC, whether
> > >> or not it extends/changes PDU format, should be able to claim a
number
> by
> > WG consensus.  Reasons for
> > >> claiming a new number could include things like:
> > >> 1) New feature introduction (e.g. new Opcodes, new TMF Codes, new
Async
> > codes)
> > >> 2) Major bug fix to the iSCSI protocol that affects end node
processing
> > >> 3) Change in semantics to keep up with changing SCSI semantics
> > >> 4) A PDU Format enhancement
> > >> 5) TBD reason by WG consensus
> > >>
> > >> Reasons 1-3 may not have associated PDU format changes, unlike 4.
I
> > suggest these should all be
> > >> grounds for the WG to consider assigning a number.
> > >>
> > >> Doing this allows implementations to negotiate a shared milestone
at an
> RFC
> > granularity (if that RFC
> > >> has a number), as opposed to feature-by-feature negotiation (e.g.
> > TaskReporting="FastAbort") with some
> > >> gray areas that we had to resort to so far.
> > >>
> > >> Thanks.
> > >>
> > >> Mallikarjun
> > >>
> > >>> -----Original Message-----
> > >>> From: storm-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:storm-bounces@ietf.org] On
Behalf
> Of
> > >>> Black_David@emc.com
> > >>> Sent: Friday, March 26, 2010 11:48 AM
> > >>> To: storm@ietf.org
> > >>> Cc: Black_David@emc.com
> > >>> Subject: [storm] iSCSI SAM update: login key
> > >>>
> > >>> Based on discussion in the Anaheim meeting, here's the proposal
that
> > emerged
> > >>> for the login key to negotiate usage of the new features in the
iSCSI
> SAM
> > >>> update draft (draft-ietf-storm-iscsi-sam-00).
> > >>>
> > >>> Past concerns (that I can recall) about this have been:
> > >>> - Key needs to negotiate iSCSI PDU format/content changes only.
> > >>> - Detecting device support or lack thereof for SCSI features
> > >>> 	should be handled at the SCSI level (e.g., via SCSI
commands).
> > >>> - Using a SAM version number in this iSCSI key is not a good
idea.
> > >>> - Would like something that can accommodate future changes.
> > >>> - Changing the key name from what's in the draft may be desired.
> > >>>
> > >>> The proposal that emerged is:
> > >>>
> > >>> The key name will be PDUFormatLevel.  It's a numeric (not
boolean) key
> > with
> > >>> two defined values:
> > >>> 	- 1 = Current iSCSI (all four RFCs - 3720, 3980, 4850
and 5048,
> > >>> 		but no change to required vs. optional
features).
> > >>> 	- 2 = Current iSCSI plus features in update draft.
> > >>> Usage is Leading Only (LO), scope is Session Wide (SW).
> > >>> Default value is 1, result function is Minimum.
> > >>>
> > >>> This will be an IETF key whose values are assigned by IETF
standards
> > action
> > >>> (standards-track RFC); it is not linked to SAM versions (e.g., a
new
> > version
> > >>> of SAM is not a prerequisite to assigning the value 3).
> > >>>
> > >>> This key also provides a clean way to handle definition of iSCSI
> version
> > >>> descriptors in SPC-4:
> > >>> - 0960h would remain "iSCSI (no version claimed)"
> > >>> - The range 0961h-097Fh would be defined as 0960h + value
> > >>> 	of PDUFormatLevel key used by the device.
> > >>> That results in one place (IANA registry) covering both
definitions
> (key&
> > >>> version descriptor).
> > >>>
> > >>> In order to support iSCSI version descriptors, we would ask IANA
to
> put
> > the
> > >>> values of the PDUFormatLevel key into a separate registry with
its own
> > URL,
> > >>> and then ask T10 to modify SPC-4.  The latter is not an
immediate
> action -
> > I
> > >>> would not anticipate bringing the SPC-4 proposal for that to T10
until
> > after
> > >>> the RFC is published and the IANA registry is created.
> > >>>
> > >>> This was the sense of the room + WebEx in Anaheim.  Absence of
> objection
> > on
> > >>> the list will confirm the above as the approach to be taken
(rough
> > consensus
> > >>> of the storm WG).
> > >>>
> > >>> Thanks,
> > >>> --David
> > >>> ----------------------------------------------------
> > >>> David L. Black, Distinguished Engineer
> > >>> 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
> > >>> ----------------------------------------------------
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>> _______________________________________________
> > >>> storm mailing list
> > >>> storm@ietf.org
> > >>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/storm
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > storm mailing list
> > > storm@ietf.org
> > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/storm
> 
>