Re: [storm] Plan for iSCSI work
Mallikarjun Chadalapaka <cbm@chadalapaka.com> Sat, 28 May 2011 00:30 UTC
Return-Path: <cbm@chadalapaka.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 33237E06BA for <storm@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 27 May 2011 17:30:18 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id UQ7LtJIfsIA1 for <storm@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 27 May 2011 17:30:17 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from snt0-omc1-s3.snt0.hotmail.com (snt0-omc1-s3.snt0.hotmail.com [65.55.90.14]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3C21EE0618 for <storm@ietf.org>; Fri, 27 May 2011 17:30:17 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from SNT131-DS11 ([65.55.90.9]) by snt0-omc1-s3.snt0.hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675); Fri, 27 May 2011 17:30:16 -0700
X-Originating-IP: [131.107.0.94]
X-Originating-Email: [cbm@chadalapaka.com]
Message-ID: <SNT131-ds117065D22D7BF8583485DBA0790@phx.gbl>
From: Mallikarjun Chadalapaka <cbm@chadalapaka.com>
To: 'Hemal Shah' <hemal@broadcom.com>, david.black@emc.com, storm@ietf.org
References: <7C4DFCE962635144B8FAE8CA11D0BF1E0588F426C5@MX14A.corp.emc.com> <SNT131-ds2DE0F0F2022D63A4AD747A0760@phx.gbl> <76DBE161893C324BA6D4BB507EE4C384951235CB38@IRVEXCHCCR02.corp.ad.broadcom.com>
In-Reply-To: <76DBE161893C324BA6D4BB507EE4C384951235CB38@IRVEXCHCCR02.corp.ad.broadcom.com>
Date: Fri, 27 May 2011 17:29:15 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 14.0
Thread-Index: AQCUfOqLFecrTE8dOe+/hpcfY+kOJQIRzTq9AgfEPyGW79UNkA==
Content-Language: en-us
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 28 May 2011 00:30:16.0569 (UTC) FILETIME=[6AB06E90:01CC1CCE]
Subject: Re: [storm] Plan for iSCSI work
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, 28 May 2011 00:30:18 -0000
Hi Hemal, The text in this draft came verbatim from section 4.1.3 of RFC 5048. There have been no changes in this area. The new text (as well as the old text) requires the TaskReporting key to be negotiated to "FastAbort" before the multi-task abort semantics can be used on an iSCSI session. Thanks. Mallikarjun -----Original Message----- From: Hemal Shah [mailto:hemal@broadcom.com] Sent: Friday, May 27, 2011 4:51 PM To: Mallikarjun Chadalapaka; david.black@emc.com; storm@ietf.org Subject: RE: [storm] Plan for iSCSI work 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 4.2.3.4. 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. Hemal -----Original Message----- From: storm-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:storm-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Mallikarjun Chadalapaka Sent: Thursday, May 26, 2011 6:50 PM To: david.black@emc.com; storm@ietf.org 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 text 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. Thanks. Mallikarjun -----Original Message----- From: storm-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:storm-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of david.black@emc.com Sent: Friday, May 20, 2011 2:49 PM To: storm@ietf.org 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 this draft and the new features draft (draft-ietf-storm-iscsi-sam) starting in mid- 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 the latest so that the status of the drafts and the next steps are known prior to the T10 (SCSI standards) meetings during the week of July 11. As July 11th is also the draft cutoff deadline for the Quebec City IETF meetings, revised draft versions may not show up until that meeting week (week of July 24th). 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 what 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 reason 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 discuss 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 needed. 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. Thanks, --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 david.black@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
- [storm] Plan for iSCSI work david.black
- Re: [storm] Plan for iSCSI work Mallikarjun Chadalapaka
- Re: [storm] Plan for iSCSI work Hemal Shah
- Re: [storm] Plan for iSCSI work Mallikarjun Chadalapaka
- Re: [storm] Plan for iSCSI work Hemal Shah
- Re: [storm] Plan for iSCSI work Mallikarjun Chadalapaka
- Re: [storm] Plan for iSCSI work Hemal Shah
- Re: [storm] Plan for iSCSI work Mallikarjun Chadalapaka
- Re: [storm] Plan for iSCSI work Pat Thaler
- Re: [storm] Plan for iSCSI work Mallikarjun Chadalapaka
- Re: [storm] Plan for iSCSI work Hemal Shah
- Re: [storm] Plan for iSCSI work david.black