[storm] iSCSI - exchange count

<david.black@emc.com> Tue, 03 July 2012 16:33 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 2573221F86D9 for <storm@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 3 Jul 2012 09:33:01 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.579
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.579 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.020, BAYES_00=-2.599, 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 hAZuAKuRnJYg for <storm@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 3 Jul 2012 09:33:00 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mexforward.lss.emc.com (hop-nat-141.emc.com [168.159.213.141]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 72CD421F86D3 for <storm@ietf.org>; Tue, 3 Jul 2012 09:33:00 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from hop04-l1d11-si02.isus.emc.com (HOP04-L1D11-SI02.isus.emc.com [10.254.111.55]) by mexforward.lss.emc.com (Switch-3.4.3/Switch-3.4.3) with ESMTP id q63GX4vv000459 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for <storm@ietf.org>; Tue, 3 Jul 2012 12:33:07 -0400
Received: from mailhub.lss.emc.com (mailhub.lss.emc.com [10.254.222.130]) by hop04-l1d11-si02.isus.emc.com (RSA Interceptor) for <storm@ietf.org>; Tue, 3 Jul 2012 12:32:51 -0400
Received: from mxhub20.corp.emc.com (mxhub20.corp.emc.com [10.254.93.49]) by mailhub.lss.emc.com (Switch-3.4.3/Switch-3.4.3) with ESMTP id q63GWpCv011691 for <storm@ietf.org>; Tue, 3 Jul 2012 12:32:51 -0400
Received: from mx15a.corp.emc.com ([169.254.1.189]) by mxhub20.corp.emc.com ([10.254.93.49]) with mapi; Tue, 3 Jul 2012 12:32:51 -0400
From: <david.black@emc.com>
To: <storm@ietf.org>
Importance: high
X-Priority: 1
Date: Tue, 3 Jul 2012 12:32:49 -0400
Thread-Topic: iSCSI - exchange count
Thread-Index: Ac1ZOXxpax03poRETBq12DKtgGMvyA==
Message-ID: <8D3D17ACE214DC429325B2B98F3AE71208D3ACC3@MX15A.corp.emc.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="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-EMM-MHVC: 1
Subject: [storm] iSCSI - exchange count
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: Tue, 03 Jul 2012 16:33:01 -0000

<Draft co-author hat on>

I wanted to extract this change from Mallikarjun's long list of normative changes to call it out for attention.

The important question is: Is "6" the right number of exchanges that SHOULD be allowed?
There's nothing special about that number ... it "seemed like a good idea at the time".

Alternate suggestions are welcome, especially if this change could cause any problems for current implementations.

Section 6.2
[from]
An iSCSI initiator or target MAY terminate a negotiation that does not end within a reasonable time or number of exchanges.

[to]
An iSCSI initiator or target MAY terminate a negotiation that does not terminate within an implementation-specific reasonable time or number of exchanges, but SHOULD allow at least 6 exchanges.

Thanks,
--David
----------------------------------------------------
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
----------------------------------------------------