Re: [storm] Draft minutes from Anaheim

"Knight, Frederick" <Frederick.Knight@netapp.com> Sat, 27 March 2010 20:59 UTC

Return-Path: <Frederick.Knight@netapp.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 A719E3A68C2 for <storm@core3.amsl.com>; Sat, 27 Mar 2010 13:59:50 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.869
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.869 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_50=0.001, DNS_FROM_OPENWHOIS=1.13, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
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 eVfwpDomUU3f for <storm@core3.amsl.com>; Sat, 27 Mar 2010 13:59:49 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mx2.netapp.com (mx2.netapp.com [216.240.18.37]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A9EF63A6802 for <storm@ietf.org>; Sat, 27 Mar 2010 13:59:49 -0700 (PDT)
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.51,320,1267430400"; d="scan'208";a="337130495"
Received: from smtp2.corp.netapp.com ([10.57.159.114]) by mx2-out.netapp.com with ESMTP; 27 Mar 2010 14:00:00 -0700
Received: from sacrsexc1-prd.hq.netapp.com (sacrsexc1-prd.hq.netapp.com [10.99.115.27]) by smtp2.corp.netapp.com (8.13.1/8.13.1/NTAP-1.6) with ESMTP id o2RKxxZS002737; Sat, 27 Mar 2010 14:00:00 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from rtprsexc2-prd.hq.netapp.com ([10.100.161.115]) by sacrsexc1-prd.hq.netapp.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959); Sat, 27 Mar 2010 14:00:00 -0700
Received: from RTPMVEXC1-PRD.hq.netapp.com ([10.100.161.112]) by rtprsexc2-prd.hq.netapp.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959); Sat, 27 Mar 2010 16:59:58 -0400
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5
Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Date: Sat, 27 Mar 2010 16:59:57 -0400
Message-ID: <AC32D7C72530234288643DD5F1435D5308FF352F@RTPMVEXC1-PRD.hq.netapp.com>
In-Reply-To: <690958.35528.qm@smtp111.biz.mail.re2.yahoo.com>
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
Thread-Topic: [storm] Draft minutes from Anaheim
Thread-Index: AcrNtTbwmKRi1NTKSHez52HXo8Xw0gAOVvUg
References: <C2D311A6F086424F99E385949ECFEBCB02162B4B@CORPUSMX80B.corp.emc.com> <690958.35528.qm@smtp111.biz.mail.re2.yahoo.com>
From: "Knight, Frederick" <Frederick.Knight@netapp.com>
To: "Mark S. Edwards" <marke@muttsnuts.com>, <storm@ietf.org>
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 27 Mar 2010 20:59:58.0569 (UTC) FILETIME=[75CCED90:01CACDF0]
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 20:59:50 -0000

There are reports of working being done with (code being written for)
MARKERS, so it is premature to remove them.

	Fred Knight


-----Original Message-----
From: Mark S. Edwards [mailto:marke@muttsnuts.com] 
Sent: Saturday, March 27, 2010 9:56 AM
To: storm@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [storm] Draft minutes from Anaheim

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

_______________________________________________
storm mailing list
storm@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/storm