Re: [storm] Draft minutes from Anaheim

"Mark S. Edwards" <marke@muttsnuts.com> Sat, 27 March 2010 13:55 UTC

Return-Path: <marke@muttsnuts.com>
X-Original-To: storm@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: storm@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1C05B3A6894 for <storm@core3.amsl.com>; Sat, 27 Mar 2010 06:55:24 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 1.132
X-Spam-Level: *
X-Spam-Status: No, score=1.132 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_50=0.001, DNS_FROM_OPENWHOIS=1.13, UNPARSEABLE_RELAY=0.001]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 79oHnwRwJIeY for <storm@core3.amsl.com>; Sat, 27 Mar 2010 06:55:23 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtp111.biz.mail.re2.yahoo.com (smtp111.biz.mail.re2.yahoo.com [66.196.116.96]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 370263A67F3 for <storm@ietf.org>; Sat, 27 Mar 2010 06:55:23 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (qmail 39060 invoked from network); 27 Mar 2010 13:55:45 -0000
Message-ID: <690958.35528.qm@smtp111.biz.mail.re2.yahoo.com>
Received: from Igor.muttsnuts.com (marke@86.179.116.91 with login) by smtp111.biz.mail.re2.yahoo.com with SMTP; 27 Mar 2010 06:55:45 -0700 PDT
X-Yahoo-SMTP: bRG7rdWswBCH1dgXoodv3R.kBjic
X-YMail-OSG: 5hlZex4VM1kRSAD2SusdAGQTbDPNPQD0PC6z6Uj8OhF2Z_Hu5OA8Hg3vkTYD1zo.tSNqEUWJ4oSGUpCJ3bX6eObDIa.K7ITzpjUVACu9Zqu22qIfK.fX158tLkMSS0O7nOMzkPSiZ2hqyAs5MXpMucK0LTJfZnYM19nGFB05F2XJppf7AD63V8KSbsGIdA7T5iRvg8Auorx4g3H9h65PNv8ov36bHF7.Vfu7teykkopv0axJ6YSnu2Zg1tMPIYJ6r7F4r8sZgDMjq0JJUJwhkNTmrasS71hVzUoAFAcL08BgkgHcvKwhTy6fnaHn1FrcRnIHUD.V3l53MjrMjpOgh7Vha9CvByWXkjWUM9Qj.SOB6iJpqVnaix3rKnlFH1YdqUdGecEJu4TwzihdgzIRS90_ZDW9Auyj9jo-
X-Yahoo-Newman-Property: ymail-3
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 7.1.0.9
Date: Sat, 27 Mar 2010 13:55:30 +0000
To: <storm@ietf.org>
From: "Mark S. Edwards" <marke@muttsnuts.com>
In-Reply-To: <C2D311A6F086424F99E385949ECFEBCB02162B4B@CORPUSMX80B.corp. emc.com>
References: <C2D311A6F086424F99E385949ECFEBCB02162B4B@CORPUSMX80B.corp.emc.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed
Subject: Re: [storm] Draft minutes from Anaheim
X-BeenThere: storm@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: Storage Maintenance WG <storm.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/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 Mar 2010 13:55:24 -0000

Regarding the feature removal discussion, can I add SLP to the list ?

The RFC 3721 states

"iSCSI equipment that
       need discovery functions beyond SendTargets should at least
       implement SLP, and then consider iSNS when extended discovery
       management capabilities are required such as in larger storage
       networks.  It should be noted that since iSNS will support SLP,
       iSNS can be used to help manage the discovery information returned
       by SLP."

The implication is that targets and initiators should expect to find 
support for SLP before considering iSNS.

I remember our first iSCSI appliance and we spent ages trying to get 
SLP working because it the above wording effectively made it 
mandatory.  SLP turned out to be a complete bust and was effectively 
killed off when Microsoft refused to support it in their initiator 
and in their target logo tests.

The result is that today I doubt you could find a target or initiator 
out there supporting SLP.

For anybody that does still implement SLP we could change the wording 
for SLP a little to remove the implied hierarchy, or just admit that 
running code has created IETF consensus.


On another removal topic, I seem to recall that Mallikarjun also said 
that he was removing markers.  I don't particularly object to this 
but I do wonder if this will affect any HBA implementations ?

Regards,

Mark.


At 06:59 27/03/2010, Black_David@emc.com wrote:
>Draft minutes are attached - please comment, correct, etc.
>
>Also, in the absence of objection on this mailing list, decisions 
>recorded in the minutes are considered to be the rough consensus of 
>this WG, *except* that two issues were identified as sufficiently 
>important to discuss separately on the list (see separate messages):
>         - Text negotiation key for new iSCSI features (discussion 
> in progress)
>         - Features to remove from iSCSI (discussion to be started)
>
>Many thanks to Craig Carlson for taking notes during the meeting.
>
>Thanks,
>--David
>----------------------------------------------------
>David L. Black, Distinguished Engineer
>EMC Corporation, 176 South St., Hopkinton, MA  01748
>+1 (508) 293-7953             FAX: +1 (508) 293-7786
>black_david@emc.com        Mobile: +1 (978) 394-7754
>----------------------------------------------------
>
>
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>storm mailing list
>storm@ietf.org
>https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/storm