Re: [storm] Drafts of new iSCSI specs

[<[e-mail]>]

I do not recall making any such request - if I did (my memory's far from perfect), I hereby withdraw that request ;-).

Please change that back to "MAY".

Thanks,
--David


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Mallikarjun Chadalapaka [mailto:[e-mail]]
> Sent: Thursday, August 25, 2011 10:28 PM
> To: [e-mail]; Black, David; Banta, Andy (VMWare); [e-mail]
> 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
> 
> Thanks Andy and David for surfacing the feedback.  It is indeed a good
> catch.
> 
> I just searched through my available iSCSI email archives, and did not see
> how/why this had changed.  I do not know of an easy way to search through
> ips and storm archives (and I know I lost some archives last year).  Please
> let this thread know if you have requested this change and would like to
> continue to argue for it, or have the email trail that resulted in this
> change.  My default plan is to flip this back to MAY as proposed below in
> the next revision.
> 
> I was not tracking this as changed so it didn't even figure in my change
> list.  Sorry about that.
> 
> Mallikarjun
> 
> 
> 
>   -----Original Message-----
>   From: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf
>   Of [e-mail]
>   Sent: Wednesday, August 24, 2011 5:49 PM
>   To: [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]
>   Cc: [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail];
>   [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]
>   Subject: Re: [storm] Drafts of new iSCSI specs
> 
>   Yes, absolutely.
> 
>   	paul
> 
>   -----Original Message-----
>   From: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf
>   Of [e-mail]
>   Sent: Wednesday, August 24, 2011 7:21 PM
>   To: [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]
>   Cc: [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail];
>   [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]
>   Subject: Re: [storm] Drafts of new iSCSI specs
> 
>   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: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]] On
>   Behalf
>   > Of [e-mail]
>   > Sent: Wednesday, August 24, 2011 7:10 PM
>   > To: Banta, Andy (VMWare); [e-mail]
>   > 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
>   > [phone]             FAX: [phone]
>   > [e-mail]        Mobile: [phone]
>   > ----------------------------------------------------
>   >
>   > > -----Original Message-----
>   > > From: Andy Banta [mailto:[e-mail]]
>   > > Sent: Monday, August 15, 2011 1:02 PM
>   > > To: Black, David; [e-mail]
>   > > 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
>   > > [e-mail]
>   > >
>   > > > 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 -
>   > > > > [e-mail], 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
>   > > > > [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
>   _______________________________________________
>   storm mailing list
>   [e-mail]
>   https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/storm
>