Re: [storm] Drafts of new iSCSI specs
<david.black@emc.com> Fri, 26 August 2011 15:06 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 3372321F8B47 for <storm@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 26 Aug 2011 08:06:41 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -106.087
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-106.087 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.512, 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 XkFR2eGUdSl6 for <storm@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 26 Aug 2011 08:06:40 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mexforward.lss.emc.com (mexforward.lss.emc.com [128.222.32.20]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 058E821F8B36 for <storm@ietf.org>; Fri, 26 Aug 2011 08:06:39 -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 p7QF7sg7007317 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Fri, 26 Aug 2011 11:07:54 -0400
Received: from mailhub.lss.emc.com (mailhub.lss.emc.com [10.254.222.130]) by hop04-l1d11-si01.isus.emc.com (RSA Interceptor); Fri, 26 Aug 2011 11:07:46 -0400
Received: from mxhub22.corp.emc.com (mxhub22.corp.emc.com [128.221.56.108]) by mailhub.lss.emc.com (Switch-3.4.3/Switch-3.4.3) with ESMTP id p7QF7kTg009852; Fri, 26 Aug 2011 11:07:46 -0400
Received: from mx14a.corp.emc.com ([169.254.1.143]) by mxhub22.corp.emc.com ([128.221.56.108]) with mapi; Fri, 26 Aug 2011 11:07:46 -0400
From: david.black@emc.com
To: cbm@chadalapaka.com, storm@ietf.org
Date: Fri, 26 Aug 2011 11:07:44 -0400
Thread-Topic: [storm] Drafts of new iSCSI specs
Thread-Index: AQH7v8ARP0hsqeEhD1s2AMfkEXJUyAJlXAxrAvnL6fgCRDjnowFagJh5AhvFOJcCkQOyOJRiVp7wgADUVeA=
Message-ID: <7C4DFCE962635144B8FAE8CA11D0BF1E058B12FDE2@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> <7C4DFCE962635144B8FAE8CA11D0BF1E0589672C5E@MX14A.corp.emc.com> <09787EF419216C41A903FD14EE5506DD01530AAA23@AUSX7MCPC103.AMER.DELL.COM> <SNT131-ds15CEA2ECE6B8A2F8701837A0130@phx.gbl>
In-Reply-To: <SNT131-ds15CEA2ECE6B8A2F8701837A0130@phx.gbl>
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] 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: Fri, 26 Aug 2011 15:06:41 -0000
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:cbm@chadalapaka.com] > Sent: Thursday, August 25, 2011 10:28 PM > To: Paul_Koning@Dell.com; Black, David; 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 > > 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: storm-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:storm-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf > Of Paul_Koning@Dell.com > Sent: Wednesday, August 24, 2011 5:49 PM > To: david.black@emc.com; abanta@vmware.com; storm@ietf.org > 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 > > Yes, absolutely. > > paul > > -----Original Message----- > From: storm-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:storm-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf > Of david.black@emc.com > Sent: Wednesday, August 24, 2011 7:21 PM > To: david.black@emc.com; abanta@vmware.com; storm@ietf.org > 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 > > 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 > > _______________________________________________ > 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 >
- 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