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