Re: [storm] Removing iSCSI Markers?

["Paul Koning" <[e-mail]>]

I sure would like markers to go away.  Rumors of their use are somewhat
interesting, but substantiated data would be more so.

	paul

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf
> Of Mallikarjun Chadalapaka
> Sent: Monday, March 29, 2010 8:33 PM
> To: 'Mark S. Edwards'; [e-mail]
> Subject: [storm] Removing iSCSI Markers?
> 
> Just to clarify...
> 
> > On another removal topic, I seem to recall that Mallikarjun also
said
> > that he was removing markers.
> 
> I had only said that it's one of the items I had heard prior requests
> on
> (that it be removed).  Thanks for initiating the list discussion
> though!
> 
> > but I do wonder if this will affect any HBA implementations ?
> 
> Good question, I don't know.  HBA vendors, especially iSCSI/iSER/RNIC
> "roto-tilled" implementations, please chime in.
> 
> 
> Mallikarjun
> 
> 
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]] On
> Behalf Of
> Mark
> > S. Edwards
> > Sent: Saturday, March 27, 2010 6:56 AM
> > To: [e-mail]
> > 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, [e-mail] 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
> > >[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