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

"Prakash Venkatesen, ERS-HCLTech" <> Wed, 03 April 2013 12:16 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id E429021F8BF8; Wed, 3 Apr 2013 05:16:13 -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 PylzjxAdmLxl; Wed, 3 Apr 2013 05:16:13 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id EF85521F8BC5; Wed, 3 Apr 2013 05:16:11 -0700 (PDT)
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.87,401,1363113000"; d="scan'208";a="10118904"
Received: from unknown (HELO CHN-CORP-HT01.CORP.HCL.IN) ([]) by with ESMTP/TLS/AES128-SHA; 03 Apr 2013 17:48:27 +0530
Received: from CHN-HCLT-HT04.HCLT.CORP.HCL.IN ( by CHN-CORP-HT01.CORP.HCL.IN ( with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.2.318.1; Wed, 3 Apr 2013 17:46:09 +0530
Received: from CHN-HCLT-EVS16.HCLT.CORP.HCL.IN ([]) by CHN-HCLT-HT04.HCLT.CORP.HCL.IN ([::1]) with mapi; Wed, 3 Apr 2013 17:46:08 +0530
From: "Prakash Venkatesen, ERS-HCLTech" <>
To: "Romascanu, Dan (Dan)" <>, "" <>
Date: Wed, 3 Apr 2013 17:46:08 +0530
Thread-Topic: Gen-ART Review of draft-ietf-storm-iscsimib-03.txt
Thread-Index: Ac38ru1wNGisP6GHRvWY2E+60/tmIwzEpz/hACbySkAAASBrEg==
Message-ID: <62DC16C614A9554F81C8E2E5C174A98838DA0C7744@CHN-HCLT-EVS16.HCLT.CORP.HCL.IN>
References: <> <62DC16C614A9554F81C8E2E5C174A98838DA0C7742@CHN-HCLT-EVS16.HCLT.CORP.HCL.IN>, <>
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: Wed, 03 Apr 2013 12:16:14 -0000

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
    STATUS current
        "A collection of objects added in the second version of the
        iSCSI MIB."
    GROUP iscsiNewObjectsV2
        "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.


From: Romascanu, Dan (Dan) []
Sent: Wednesday, April 03, 2013 5:01 PM
To: Prakash Venkatesen, ERS-HCLTech;
Cc:;; Martin Stiemerling;
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 []
> 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,



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.