Re: [storm] Drafts of new iSCSI specs
<david.black@emc.com> Wed, 24 August 2011 23:20 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 A15E721F8C9A for <storm@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 24 Aug 2011 16:20:03 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -106.01
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-106.01 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.589, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, 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 twDs8NZiO-qA for <storm@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 24 Aug 2011 16:20:02 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mexforward.lss.emc.com (mexforward.lss.emc.com [128.222.32.20]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8908821F8C74 for <storm@ietf.org>; Wed, 24 Aug 2011 16:20:02 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from hop04-l1d11-si03.isus.emc.com (HOP04-L1D11-SI03.isus.emc.com [10.254.111.23]) by mexforward.lss.emc.com (Switch-3.4.3/Switch-3.4.3) with ESMTP id p7ONLCHh015736 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for <storm@ietf.org>; Wed, 24 Aug 2011 19:21:12 -0400
Received: from mailhub.lss.emc.com (mailhub.lss.emc.com [10.254.222.226]) by hop04-l1d11-si03.isus.emc.com (RSA Interceptor) for <storm@ietf.org>; Wed, 24 Aug 2011 19:21:04 -0400
Received: from mxhub30.corp.emc.com (mxhub30.corp.emc.com [128.221.47.159]) by mailhub.lss.emc.com (Switch-3.4.3/Switch-3.4.3) with ESMTP id p7ONL3jb024075 for <storm@ietf.org>; Wed, 24 Aug 2011 19:21:03 -0400
Received: from mx14a.corp.emc.com ([169.254.1.245]) by mxhub30.corp.emc.com ([128.221.47.159]) with mapi; Wed, 24 Aug 2011 19:21:03 -0400
From: david.black@emc.com
To: david.black@emc.com, abanta@vmware.com, storm@ietf.org
Date: Wed, 24 Aug 2011 19:21:01 -0400
Thread-Topic: Drafts of new iSCSI specs
Thread-Index: AcxbbRUHmJTfdUS+ThepJzeK4W8f9wHRNjgAAACeb6A=
Message-ID: <7C4DFCE962635144B8FAE8CA11D0BF1E0589672C5E@MX14A.corp.emc.com>
References: <7C4DFCE962635144B8FAE8CA11D0BF1E0589413C60@MX14A.corp.emc.com> <7C4DFCE962635144B8FAE8CA11D0BF1E058959DA1E@MX14A.corp.emc.com> <20110815170044.GE1978@vmware.com> <20110815170212.GF1978@vmware.com> <7C4DFCE962635144B8FAE8CA11D0BF1E0589672C59@MX14A.corp.emc.com>
In-Reply-To: <7C4DFCE962635144B8FAE8CA11D0BF1E0589672C59@MX14A.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
Cc: abanta@vmware.com, khuang@vmware.com, ntomar@vmware.com, ksreekanti@vmware.com, paithal@vmware.com, ngoyal@vmware.com
Subject: Re: [storm] Drafts of new iSCSI specs
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: Wed, 24 Aug 2011 23:20:03 -0000
Follow-up on this - I believe that we should stick with the two MAY-use requirements that were in RFC 3720. Thanks, --David > -----Original Message----- > From: storm-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:storm-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of david.black@emc.com > Sent: Wednesday, August 24, 2011 7:10 PM > To: Banta, Andy (VMWare); storm@ietf.org > Cc: Banta, Andy (VMWare); Huang, Kun (VMWare); Tomar, Nagendra (VMWare); Sreekanti, Kumar (VMWare); > Aithal, Prasanna (VMWare); Goyal, Neeraj (VMWare) > Subject: Re: [storm] Drafts of new iSCSI specs > > Andy, > > Many thanks for looking at the consolidated draft. > > > In section 9.2, authentication is now required (MUST rather than MAY). > > I'm quite sure this isn't going to fly with everyone. CHAP is rarely > > used in production environments, and until there's some distributed > > key authentication method, I don't think many customers are going > > to be interested. > > Indeed it does, good catch, thank you. > > The offending text in the consolidated draft is: > > 9.2. In-band Initiator-Target Authentication > > During login, the target MUST authenticate the initiator and the > initiator MAY authenticate the target. > > RFC 3720 had this text instead: > > 8.2. In-band Initiator-Target Authentication > > During login, the target MAY authenticate the initiator and the > initiator MAY authenticate the target. > > 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 > ---------------------------------------------------- > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Andy Banta [mailto:abanta@vmware.com] > > Sent: Monday, August 15, 2011 1:02 PM > > To: Black, David; storm@ietf.org > > Cc: Banta, Andy (VMWare); Sreekanti, Kumar (VMWare); Huang, Kun (VMWare); Aithal, Prasanna (VMWare); > > Tomar, Nagendra (VMWare) > > Subject: Re: Drafts of new iSCSI specs > > > > On Thu, Aug 04, 2011 at 12:08:38AM -0400, Black, David wrote: > > > Andy, > > > > > > Can I interest you or anyone else at VMware in taking a look at these > > > specs - it > > > shouldn't involve a lot of time. I can extend the deadline for input > > > past VMworld if that helps. > > > > David, Folks, > > > > I'm the vSphere iSCSI development tech lead at VMware. > > > > I got a chance to look at the first one. A few comments: > > > > In section 9.2, authentication is now required (MUST rather than MAY). > > I'm quite sure this isn't going to fly with everyone. CHAP is rarely > > used in production environments, and until there's some distributed > > key authentication method, I don't think many customers are going > > to be interested. > > > > If this RFC gets approved as written, it will regularly be violated at > > this clause. > > > > We are interested in coming up with a pluggable authentication method, > > but I don't think that will change the spec in any way. > > > > I don't have any other specific comments based on the changes, but > > have not gone through the spec in detail. I'll take a look at the > > second spec in the next few days. > > > > Thanks, > > Andy > > banta@vmware.com > > > > > Thanks, > > > --David > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > From: Black, David > > > > Sent: Friday, July 15, 2011 2:01 AM > > > > To: Banta, Andy (VMWare) > > > > Cc: Black, David > > > > Subject: FW: Drafts of new iSCSI specs > > > > Importance: High > > > > > > > > Hi Andy, > > > > > > > > It was good to see you at EMC World, even if only briefly. > > > > > > > > I'm one of the co-chairs of the IETF storm (STORage Maintenance), where > > > > new drafts of the iSCSI specifications are close to completion (they're > > > > in Working Group Last Call). We're looking for review and feedback from > > > > iSCSI implementers, and I was hoping that you could take a look at this > > > > on behalf of ESX's iSCSI implementation. > > > > > > > > There are two new iSCSI drafts: > > > > > > > > (1) iSCSI Protocol (Consolidated), draft-ietf-storm-iscsi-cons-03 > > > > http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-storm-iscsi-cons/ > > > > > > > > This draft consolidates several existing iSCSI RFCs, primarily RFC 3720 > > > > and RFC 5048, and removes some unimplemented features - the result should be > > > > backwards-compatible with existing implementations. As the draft is several > > > > hundred pages in length, I don't expect you to read it in its entirety, but > > > > could you look at this summary of what's been changed and see whether it's > > > > reasonable?: > > > > > > > > 2.3. Summary of Changes > > > > > > > > 1) Consolidated RFCs 3720, 3980, 4850 and 5048, and made the > > > > necessary editorial changes > > > > 2) iSCSIProtocolLevel is specified as "1" in section 13.24, and > > > > added a related normative reference to [iSCSI-SAM] draft > > > > 3) Markers and related keys were removed > > > > 4) SPKM authentication and related keys were removed > > > > 5) Added a new section 13.25 on responding to obsoleted keys > > > > 6) Have explicitly allowed initiator+target implementations > > > > throughout the text > > > > 7) Clarified in section 4.2.7 that implementations SHOULD NOT > > > > rely on SLP-based discovery > > > > 8) Added UML diagrams, and related conventions in section 3 > > > > 9) FastAbort implementation is made a "SHOULD" requirement in > > > > section 4.2.3.4 from the previous "MUST" requirement. > > > > 10) Clarified in section 6.2 that validity of NotUnderstood > > > > response depends on iSCSIProtocolLevel > > > > > > > > (2) iSCSI SAM features, draft-ietf-storm-iscsi-sam-03 > > > > http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-storm-iscsi-sam/ > > > > > > > > iSCSI was originally based on version 2 of the SCSI architecture, SAM-2. > > > > This draft updates iSCSI to the current version of the SCSI architecture, > > > > SAM-5, by adding additional features, and a text key to negotiate their > > > > usage, iSCSIProtocolLevel. The draft is only about 20 pages - please take > > > > a look at it from an implementer's standpoint. > > > > > > > > Finally, if there's anything you wish the iSCSI RFCs said, or functionality > > > > that you think should be removed, please say so. > > > > > > > > Your comments can be sent directly to the mailing list - storm@ietf.org, > > > > or can be sent to me. Please identify yourself as a VMware iSCSI > > > > implementer in your comments. The Working Group Last Call on these drafts > > > > runs through August 21st - please let me know when you think you could > > > > have comments ready. > > > > > > > > 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 > > > > ---------------------------------------------------- > > > > _______________________________________________ > storm mailing list > storm@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/storm
- Re: [storm] Drafts of new iSCSI specs david.black
- Re: [storm] Drafts of new iSCSI specs david.black
- Re: [storm] Drafts of new iSCSI specs Paul_Koning
- Re: [storm] Drafts of new iSCSI specs Mallikarjun Chadalapaka
- Re: [storm] Drafts of new iSCSI specs david.black