Re: [storm] Plan for iSCSI work

"Hemal Shah" <> Fri, 27 May 2011 23:54 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 183F4E0726 for <>; Fri, 27 May 2011 16:54:07 -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 qviCmM3xto1g for <>; Fri, 27 May 2011 16:54:06 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 60CD2E06BA for <>; Fri, 27 May 2011 16:54:06 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [] by with ESMTP (Broadcom SMTP Relay (Email Firewall v6.3.2)); Fri, 27 May 2011 16:57:51 -0700
X-Server-Uuid: D3C04415-6FA8-4F2C-93C1-920E106A2031
Received: from ([]) by ([]) with mapi; Fri, 27 May 2011 16:53:48 -0700
From: "Hemal Shah" <>
To: "Mallikarjun Chadalapaka" <>, "" <>, "" <>
Date: Fri, 27 May 2011 16:51:26 -0700
Thread-Topic: [storm] Plan for iSCSI work
Thread-Index: AQCUfOqLFecrTE8dOe+/hpcfY+kOJZcPIlAwgAFrDvA=
Message-ID: <>
References: <> <SNT131-ds2DE0F0F2022D63A4AD747A0760@phx.gbl>
In-Reply-To: <SNT131-ds2DE0F0F2022D63A4AD747A0760@phx.gbl>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
acceptlanguage: en-US
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-WSS-ID: 61FEE5F562O1193391-01-01
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Subject: Re: [storm] Plan for iSCSI work
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: Fri, 27 May 2011 23:54:07 -0000

Mallikarjun and David,

I noticed one problematic item in the consolidated draft. This item is the requirement to support FastAbort. This feature was already defined in the implementation guide, but it was optional. In this draft, it became a required feature MUST - see in section

Do you know why the requirement was changed in the consolidated draft?

I would like to keep the requirement optional as stated in the implementation guide and not break backward compatibility.


-----Original Message-----
From: [] On Behalf Of Mallikarjun Chadalapaka
Sent: Thursday, May 26, 2011 6:50 PM
Subject: Re: [storm] Plan for iSCSI work

Hi David,

The list of changes you have called out are already done in the latest
draft.  I assume then that you are suggesting that the list itself should be
included in the next revision of the draft.  

Here's what I recall we have done so far:
1)  iSCSIProtocolLevel specified as "1", and added a related normative
reference to iSCSI-SAM draft
2)  Markers and related keys were removed
3)  SPKM authentication and related keys were removed
4)  Added a new section on responding to obsoleted keys 
5)  Have explicitly allowed initiator+target implementations throughout the
6)  Clarified that implementations SHOULD NOT rely on SLP-based discovery
7)  Added UML diagrams, and related conventions 

The above is of course in addition to consolidating the different RFCs, and
making the related editorial changes.




  -----Original Message-----
  From: [] On Behalf
  Sent: Friday, May 20, 2011 2:49 PM
  Subject: [storm] Plan for iSCSI work
  I thought I'd offer some advance planning/warning on this, as the
  consolidated iSCSI draft (draft-ietf-storm-iscsi-cons) is large (over 300
  pages).  The current plan is to run a simultaneous WG Last Call on both
  draft and the new features draft (draft-ietf-storm-iscsi-sam) starting in
  June (probably the week of June 13, after I get back from a badly needed
  vacation).  That WG Last Call will run longer than the typical 2-week time
  period, due to the total size of the drafts, but will end by July 5th at
  latest so that the status of the drafts and the next steps are known prior
  the T10 (SCSI standards) meetings during the week of July 11.  As July
  is also the draft cutoff deadline for the Quebec City IETF meetings,
  draft versions may not show up until that meeting week (week of July
  This is also a good point to announce that the storm WG will meet in
  Quebec City.
  I've only requested a 1-hour session, as we get most of our work done on
  the mailing list.  Among the items for that meeting will be figuring out
  to do with the RDMA extensions draft (despite its name, draft-ietf-storm-
  rdmap-ext-00, it's not currently an official work item for the storm WG).
  One thing that's missing from the consolidated iSCSI draft (and is a
  why we're going to need a -03 version) is the changes that it makes to the
  RFCs that it consolidates.  Off the top of my head, the major changes are:
  	- Removal of SPKM authentication
  	- Removal of the Marker appendix
  	- Removal of the SHOULD requirement for SLP implementation.
  Have I missed anything significant?  The summary of this will need to be
  added to that draft.
  WG Last Call will be an opportunity (in fact the final opportunity) to
  whether anything else should be removed from iSCSI, but there's no need
  to wait
  - I encourage people to review both drafts and post comments whenever
  they can.
  In parallel, work will get started on any iSCSI MIB changes that are
  So far, I only see one MIB change - the iSCSIProtocolLevel from the new
  features draft needs to be added to the MIB, probably with a structure
  analogous to the iSCSI version support that's already in the MIB.
  --David (storm WG co-chair)
  David L. Black, Distinguished Engineer
  EMC Corporation, 176 South St., Hopkinton, MA  01748
  +1 (508) 293-7953             FAX: +1 (508) 293-7786        Mobile: +1 (978) 394-7754
  storm mailing list

storm mailing list