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

<david.black@emc.com> Sat, 27 August 2011 22:35 UTC

Return-Path: <david.black@emc.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 083D521F8B2F for <storm@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 27 Aug 2011 15:35:25 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -106.098
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-106.098 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.501, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, 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 IoNeoxcPXeUM for <storm@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 27 Aug 2011 15:35:24 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mexforward.lss.emc.com (mexforward.lss.emc.com [128.222.32.20]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6514121F8B2A for <storm@ietf.org>; Sat, 27 Aug 2011 15:35:23 -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-3.4.3/Switch-3.4.3) with ESMTP id p7RMagsQ007125 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Sat, 27 Aug 2011 18:36:42 -0400
Received: from mailhub.lss.emc.com (mailhubhoprd03.lss.emc.com [10.254.221.145]) by hop04-l1d11-si01.isus.emc.com (RSA Interceptor); Sat, 27 Aug 2011 18:36:31 -0400
Received: from mxhub13.corp.emc.com (mxhub13.corp.emc.com [128.221.56.102]) by mailhub.lss.emc.com (Switch-3.4.3/Switch-3.4.3) with ESMTP id p7RMaV6k011076; Sat, 27 Aug 2011 18:36:31 -0400
Received: from mx14a.corp.emc.com ([169.254.1.143]) by mxhub13.corp.emc.com ([128.221.56.102]) with mapi; Sat, 27 Aug 2011 18:36:31 -0400
From: <david.black@emc.com>
To: <Frederick.Knight@netapp.com>
Date: Sat, 27 Aug 2011 18:36:30 -0400
Thread-Topic: [storm] WG Last Call comments on consolidated iSCSI draft
Thread-Index: AcxjcZ2N3riNUbfqTsqnC/4OBaAg1QAeazXwAEeC1YA=
Message-ID: <7C4DFCE962635144B8FAE8CA11D0BF1E058B130026@MX14A.corp.emc.com>
References: <7C4DFCE962635144B8FAE8CA11D0BF1E05896E6CF8@MX14A.corp.emc.com> <AC32D7C72530234288643DD5F1435D5310EDE150@RTPMVEXC1-PRD.hq.netapp.com>
In-Reply-To: <AC32D7C72530234288643DD5F1435D5310EDE150@RTPMVEXC1-PRD.hq.netapp.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
acceptlanguage: en-US
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-EMM-MHVC: 1
Cc: storm@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [storm] WG Last Call comments on consolidated iSCSI draft
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: Sat, 27 Aug 2011 22:35:25 -0000

<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.
> 
>