Re: [storm] iSCSI MIB changes - compliance requirements Q
"Black, David" <david.black@emc.com> Mon, 25 March 2013 22:51 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 87E5621F87DF for <storm@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 25 Mar 2013 15:51:23 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, 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 Fknr94Lyqaf2 for <storm@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 25 Mar 2013 15:51:20 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mexforward.lss.emc.com (hop-nat-141.emc.com [168.159.213.141]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CB3D621F8783 for <storm@ietf.org>; Mon, 25 Mar 2013 15:51:16 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from hop04-l1d11-si01.isus.emc.com (HOP04-L1D11-SI01.isus.emc.com [10.254.111.54]) by mexforward.lss.emc.com (Switch-3.4.3/Switch-3.4.3) with ESMTP id r2PMp2OC009739 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Mon, 25 Mar 2013 18:51:09 -0400
Received: from mailhub.lss.emc.com (mailhubhoprd06.lss.emc.com [10.254.222.130]) by hop04-l1d11-si01.isus.emc.com (RSA Interceptor); Mon, 25 Mar 2013 18:50:52 -0400
Received: from mxhub27.corp.emc.com (mxhub27.corp.emc.com [10.254.110.183]) by mailhub.lss.emc.com (Switch-3.4.3/Switch-3.4.3) with ESMTP id r2PMopHD029433; Mon, 25 Mar 2013 18:50:52 -0400
Received: from mx15a.corp.emc.com ([169.254.1.81]) by mxhub27.corp.emc.com ([10.254.110.183]) with mapi; Mon, 25 Mar 2013 18:50:51 -0400
From: "Black, David" <david.black@emc.com>
To: Mark Bakke <Mark_Bakke@dell.com>, "storm@ietf.org" <storm@ietf.org>
Date: Mon, 25 Mar 2013 18:50:50 -0400
Thread-Topic: iSCSI MIB changes - compliance requirements Q
Thread-Index: Ac4ZMsAUVUwWjwR8TK2GbrnoN7zwWgCNPa7wA5DTKgA=
Message-ID: <8D3D17ACE214DC429325B2B98F3AE71293AEED99@MX15A.corp.emc.com>
References: <8D3D17ACE214DC429325B2B98F3AE71290DCCE8D@MX15A.corp.emc.com> <975552A94CBC0F4DA60ED7B36C949CBA0422ABD9A5@shandy.Beer.Town>
In-Reply-To: <975552A94CBC0F4DA60ED7B36C949CBA0422ABD9A5@shandy.Beer.Town>
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
Subject: Re: [storm] iSCSI MIB changes - compliance requirements Q
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: Mon, 25 Mar 2013 22:51:23 -0000
I believe we have rough consensus for option b): > when the revised MIB is implemented (i.e., the > implementation claims compliance to the new iSCSI MIB draft/RFC-to-be), the > new features are required when: > > b) The implementation supports a value of the iSCSIProtocolLevel > key of 2 or greater. The MIB draft authors should update the draft accordingly. Thanks, --David (as storm WG co-chair) > -----Original Message----- > From: Mark Bakke [mailto:Mark_Bakke@dell.com] > Sent: Thursday, March 07, 2013 2:15 PM > To: Black, David; storm@ietf.org > Subject: RE: iSCSI MIB changes - compliance requirements Q > > David, > > Option b seems most practical to me -- I would suspect that the old MIB is > sufficient for most purposes, and there's no need to create a rush to go > implement it sooner. > > Mark > > -----Original Message----- > From: Black, David [mailto:david.black@emc.com] > Sent: Monday, March 04, 2013 5:48 PM > To: storm@ietf.org > Subject: [storm] iSCSI MIB changes - compliance requirements Q > > I'm finally resurfacing from the day job (once again) getting in the way of > IETF work :-). > > In working through the IETF Last Call comments on the iSCSI MIB, an issue has > arisen around MIB compliance requirements. A number of new objects are being > added to the revised iSCSI MIB, and the proposed approach is to make them > optional vs. mandatory to implement based on the reported value of > iSCSIProtocolLevel. > > Here's the list of changes (not all of which are in the current MIB draft): > > > . Added iscsiInstXNodeArchitecture to InstanceAttributes > > . Added iscsiSsnTaskReporting of type BITS to SessionAttributes > > . Added iscsiSsnProtocolLevel to SessionAttributes > > . Deprecated the marker objects > > . Fixed the errata to [RFC4544] > > . Added NOP counters at iSCSI session scope for heartbeat tracking > > . Added port number to the iscsiTgtLoginFailure and > > iscsiIntrLoginFailure notifications, and to the last failure info > > in iscsiInitiatorAttributesEntry > > . Added description string to the iSCSI portal > > . Added iscsiInstSsnTgtUnmappedErrors to support "Target Unmapped" > > session failure reporting in the iscsiInstSessionFailure > > notification > > . Added iscsiTgtLogoutCxnClosed and iscsiTgtLogoutCxnRemoved which > > maintain the count of Logout Command PDUs received by the target > > with reason codes 1 and 2 respectively > > . Changed the conformance statements to match the above > > And here are the values of the iSCSI Protocol Level key: > > - 0: No version claimed > - 1: iSCSI consolidated draft/RFC-to-be > - 2: iSCSI consolidated draft/RFC-to-be + new features (SAM) draft/RFC-to-be > > It's also possible to report the value 2 for an implementation that's based on > the older RFCs (primarily 3720 and 5048) plus the new features draft/RFC-to- > be. > > None of the new objects require the new features (SAM) draft/RFC-to-be. > Also, we can't put any requirements on the value 0 for obvious reasons. > > That leaves two choices - when the revised MIB is implemented (i.e., the > implementation claims compliance to the new iSCSI MIB draft/RFC-to-be), the > new features are required when: > > a) The implementation supports a value of the iSCSIProtocolLevel > key of 1 or greater; OR > b) The implementation supports a value of the iSCSIProtocolLevel > key of 2 or greater. > > Option a) would encourage a MIB update when an implementation is updated to > the iSCSI consolidated draft/RFC-to-be (minor work, as there's very little > functional change). Option b) would encourage a MIB update when an > implementation is updated to the new features (SAM) draft/RFC-to-be (moderate > functional changes). While the existing MIB RFC will be obsoleted by the new > MIB draft/RFC-to-be, it's always possible to implement the old MIB with a > newer implementation. > > I've dithered on this, but my current inclination is to go with b), as that > associates the moderate functional changes in the new MIB with the moderate > functional changes in the new features (SAM) draft. > > What do people think we should do? > > 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
- [storm] iSCSI MIB changes - compliance requiremen… Black, David
- Re: [storm] iSCSI MIB changes - compliance requir… Mark Bakke
- Re: [storm] iSCSI MIB changes - compliance requir… Black, David
- Re: [storm] iSCSI MIB changes - compliance requir… Mark Bakke
- Re: [storm] iSCSI MIB changes - compliance requir… Prakash Venkatesen, ERS-HCLTech