Re: [storm] MPA Draft - Review

[arkady kanevsky <[e-mail]>]

All,
updated version 04 is attached.

Hemal,
Thanks for catching it.
I had fixed the first issue. I had added reference to FPDU in the FULPDU
definition for the second.

David,
Please, check to see that you comments are addressed.

Steve and Robert,
please, check that you comment is fixed correctly.

Once I get positive feedback from all of you, I will submit the version.

Thanks,
Arkady

On Thu, Mar 31, 2011 at 2:43 PM, Hemal Shah <[e-mail]> wrote:

>  I have some comments on -03 draft:
>
>
>    1. In section 10, it is written that "Enhanced MPA Initiator and
>    Responder:  If a responder receives an enhanced MPA message, it MUST respond
>    with an unenhanced MPA message." I think it should be written that the
>    responder must respond with an enhanced MPA message. It appears like a typo
>    to me.
>    2. I find the use of FULPDU confusing in this draft. RFC5044 does not
>    define term FULPDU. RFC5044 uses term FPDU to refer to Framed Protocol Data
>    Unit. I suggest that we use term FPDU instead of FULPDU in the draft.
>
>
> Hemal
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]<[e-mail]>]
> On Behalf Of [e-mail]
> Sent: Thursday, March 31, 2011 7:48 AM
> To: [e-mail]
> Subject: Re: [storm] MPA Draft - Review
> Importance: High
>
> The -03 version of the MPA draft has addressed all of the issues from my
> review, and .  Unfortunately, I need some minor edits for clarity before I
> can send this on to our AD with a publication request.  Would the authors
> please submit a -04 version with the following two changes quickly.
>
> Section 9 (end)
>
> OLD
>
>    The peer-to-peer negotiation for the RTR message follows the
>    following order:
>
>    Initiator -->: Sets Control Flags it is capable to send for RTR
>
>    Responder <--: Sets Control Flags it is capable to receive for RTR
>
>    Initiator -->: The first message send MUST be a negotiated RTR
>
> NEW
>
>    The peer-to-peer negotiation for the RTR message follows the
>    following order:
>
>    Initiator -->: Sets Control Flags to indicate Initiator-supported forms
> of RTR
>
>    Responder <--: Sets Control Flags to indicate Responder-supported forms
> of RTR
>
>    Initiator -->: If at least one form of RTR is supported by both
> Initiator and
>         Responder, then the first message sent MUST be an RTR using a form
> supported
>         by both the Initiator and Responder.
>
> Section 10
>
> OLD
>       In
>       this case initiator CAN attempt to establish RDMA connection using
>       unenhanced MPA protocol as defined in [RFC5044] and let ULP deal
>       with ORD and IRD, and peer-to-peer negotiations.
>
> NEW
>
>       In
>       this case initiator MAY attempt to establish RDMA connection using
> ------------------------->^^^
>       unenhanced MPA protocol as defined in [RFC5044] if this protocol is
>         compatible with the application, and let ULP deal with ORD and IRD,
>       and peer-to-peer negotiations.
>
> Ordinarily, I'd write an RFC Editor Note for small changes like these, but
> they're sufficiently critical to interoperability that I'd prefer to have a
> new draft version that contains them.
>
> Thanks,
> --David
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Black, David
> > Sent: Wednesday, December 22, 2010 9:26 PM
> > To: [e-mail]
> > Cc: Black, David
> > Subject: MPA Draft - Review
> >
> > WG Last Call on this draft has run its course:
> >
> >                  Enhanced RDMA Connection Establishment
> >                   draft-ietf-storm-mpa-peer-connect-02
> >
> > I've done my review as a WG chair (and the person who will be shepherding
> this draft to the ADs and
> > IESG):
> >
> > - This draft is on the right track, but has open issues.
> > - Another version of the draft will be needed.
> >
> > Also, it would be greatly appreciated if a few people other than the
> authors could take a look at
> > this draft.  We have a very good author team on this draft, whose
> expertise is beyond doubt, but
> > more eyes on this draft would help.
> >
> > [1] My primary concern is that Section 9 on interoperability is
> inadequate:
> >
> >    An initiator SHOULD NOT use the Enhanced DDP Connection Establishment
> >    formats or function codes when no enhanced functionality is desired.
> >
> >    A responder SHOULD continue to accept the unenhanced connection
> >    requests.
> >
> > The good news is that the first sentence is ok.
> > The bad news is that the second sentence has significant problems:
> >        - It uses SHOULD instead of MUST.
> >        - It doesn't lay out behavior for initiator and responder
> >                Revision mixes.
> > IETF interoperability requirements are usually expressed with MUST,
> including backwards
> > compatibility.  If interop with unenhanced implementations is only a
> SHOULD, that will need a
> > convincing explanation.
> >
> > There are 3 Initiator/Responder cases that need attention (New/Old,
> Old/New and New/New).  I think
> > they lead to roughly the following:
> >
> > New/Old:
> > - Explain error or failure that the New Initiator will see because the
> Old responder
> >        doesn't support Revision 2 of the MPA protocol.
> > - Explain what the Initiator does when it sees that error or failure.
> The
> >        easiest approach is to always retry with Revision 1, but that
> won't work
> >        if the Initiator has to send an RTR (that's the "convincing
> explanation"
> >        for why backwards compatibility is not always possible).  The
> result
> >        might be two requirements:
> >        - If the Initiator has data to send, it MUST retry with Revision
> 1.
> >        - If the Initiator has no data to send, and hence has to send an
> RTR,
> >                the connection setup fails, the TCP connection closes and
> that
> >                failure MUST to be reported to the application.
> >
> > Old/New:
> > - If a responder receives a Revision 1 message, it MUST respond with a
> Revision 1 message.
> >
> > New/New:
> > - If a responder receives a Revision 2 message, it MUST respond with a
> Revision 2 message.
> >
> > I found a few other concerns:
> >
> > [B]In Section 7, we need to get the listing of all the SCTP function
> codes into one place.  Either
> > repeat the definitions of codes 1-4 from RFC 5043, or create an IANA
> registry in Section 10 and list
> > all 7 codes as its initial contents.
> >
> > [C] In Section 8, what happens if the responder sends an IRD or ORD value
> that's different from the
> > corresponding initiator value?  Is the responder allowed to increase the
> value that was sent?  An
> > important case to cover is that the initiator sends a valid value (e.g.,
> 0x2000) but the responder
> > returns the 0x3FFF value indicating that negotiation is not supported.
> Also, what is the behavior
> > of an IRD or ORD that is set to 0x0000?
> >
> > [D] In contrast, the Section 8 discussion of Control Flag functionality
> is in better shape.  It
> > would be helpful to add a sentence or two indicating when the RTR occurs
> (Request ->, <- Reply, RTR
> > ->), even though that is discussed earlier in the draft.  Also, it's
> necessary to state whether
> > negotiation of RTR functionality commits the Initiator to using an RTR
> (e.g., suppose the initiator
> > negotiates control flags to allow an RTR and instead sends an FULPDU with
> payload data after
> > receiving the Reply - is that ok or is it an error?).
> >
> > [E] Nit: In the definition of Control Flag A: ULPDU -> FULPDU
> >
> > Thanks,
> > --David
> > ----------------------------------------------------
> > David L. Black, Distinguished Engineer
> > EMC Corporation, 176 South St., Hopkinton, MA  01748
> > [phone]             FAX: [phone]
> > [e-mail]        Mobile: [phone]
> > ----------------------------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> storm mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/storm
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> storm mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/storm
>
>


-- 
Cheers,
Arkady Kanevsky