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
>