Re: [storm] iSCSI feature removal: SLP ?
"David Harrington" <ietfdbh@comcast.net> Mon, 05 July 2010 18:03 UTC
Return-Path: <ietfdbh@comcast.net>
X-Original-To: storm@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: storm@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C69B628C0D7 for <storm@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 5 Jul 2010 11:03:32 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 0.62
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.62 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_50=0.001, RCVD_IN_SORBS_WEB=0.619]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id B-n0Y-UR41M4 for <storm@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 5 Jul 2010 11:03:31 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from qmta15.emeryville.ca.mail.comcast.net (qmta15.emeryville.ca.mail.comcast.net [76.96.27.228]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C16A028C0CF for <storm@ietf.org>; Mon, 5 Jul 2010 11:03:31 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from omta18.emeryville.ca.mail.comcast.net ([76.96.30.74]) by qmta15.emeryville.ca.mail.comcast.net with comcast id eHqb1e0041bwxycAFJ3Zfd; Mon, 05 Jul 2010 18:03:33 +0000
Received: from 23FX1C1 ([65.124.181.3]) by omta18.emeryville.ca.mail.comcast.net with comcast id eJ361e00104o4rD8eJ3Bhb; Mon, 05 Jul 2010 18:03:28 +0000
From: David Harrington <ietfdbh@comcast.net>
To: "'Mark S. Edwards'" <marke@muttsnuts.com>, storm@ietf.org
References: <C2D311A6F086424F99E385949ECFEBCB02162B4B@CORPUSMX80B.corp.emc.com><690958.35528.qm@smtp111.biz.mail.re2.yahoo.com><C2D311A6F086424F99E385949ECFEBCB02A28E1D@CORPUSMX80B.corp.emc.com><473934.13068.qm@smtp114.biz.mail.mud.yahoo.com><C2D311A6F086424F99E385949ECFEBCB02ED59ED@CORPUSMX80B.corp.emc.com> <654733.53196.qm@smtp112.biz.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Date: Mon, 05 Jul 2010 14:03:10 -0400
Message-ID: <5DD99D3E24204AC3841DF1CB3636E07E@23FX1C1>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 11
Thread-index: AcsTIrSaYI/NQgTpQkGTuoIDXxg8CAJSPrGA
In-Reply-To: <654733.53196.qm@smtp112.biz.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.5931
Subject: Re: [storm] iSCSI feature removal: SLP ?
X-BeenThere: storm@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: Storage Maintenance WG <storm.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/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, 05 Jul 2010 18:03:32 -0000
Hi, I think "recommendation is no longer valid" is equivalent to "NOT RECOMMENDED" which is equivalent to "SHOULD NOT". So I recommend "SHOULD NOT" (or if you prefer, rewording to "NOT RECOMMENDED"). dbh (as contributor) > -----Original Message----- > From: storm-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:storm-bounces@ietf.org] > On Behalf Of Mark S. Edwards > Sent: Wednesday, June 23, 2010 6:23 PM > To: storm@ietf.org > Subject: Re: [storm] iSCSI feature removal: SLP ? > > Looks ok to me. I was trying to be diplomatic in case there > were any SLP diehards out there waiting to be offended. > > But since none have appeared over the parapet the hammer > approach that effectively deprecates SLP as an > interoperability mechanism suits me. > > I agree that we should not specifically prohibit it's use, > after all people are free to create and use any discovery > mechanism they wish for their own purposes. Could be SLP, > could be LDAP or "Fred's Bird-Brained Resource Locator", none > should be explicitly barred. > > Mark. > > > At 21:25 23/06/2010, david.black@emc.com wrote: > >Mark, > > > > > So if pushed I'd write something like: > > > > > > "iSCSI equipment that need discovery functions beyond SendTargets > > > should implement iSNS for extended discovery management > capabilities > > > and maximum interoperability." > > > > > > Since any unit that implements SLP or even LDAP as a discovery > > > mechanism is not going to interoperate with the majority > of systems, > > > I'd hesitate to even mention them. However, if anyone feels > > > strongly that SLP deserves some mention, then by all means do so, > > > just please don't assert it too strongly. > > > > > > One final point. Given that iSNS has won the consensus > argument, is > > > there a case for turning the "should' in the above sentence to > >"SHOULD" ? > > > >Yes, I would use "SHOULD" plus I would add text to say: > > > > SLP has not been widely implemented or deployed for use with > > iSCSI, therefore RFC 3121's recommendation that SLP be > > implemented is no longer valid. > > > >This is one of those situations in which subtlety does not win style > >points (IMHO) but I don't think we need a recommendation that SLP > >"SHOULD NOT" be implemented. In addition (as noted below), RFC 3721 > >would need to be added to the list of RFCs that are updated by the > >combined iSCSI Internet-Draft. > > > >Any objections? > > > >Thanks, > >--David > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: storm-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:storm-bounces@ietf.org] On > > > Behalf > >Of Mark S. Edwards > > > Sent: Monday, June 07, 2010 7:00 AM > > > To: storm@ietf.org > > > Subject: Re: [storm] iSCSI feature removal: SLP ? > > > > > > Sorry for the delay. > > > > > > As you say, RFC3721 was more about guidance and was > written before > > > there was any deployment experience. At least the text > says 'should' > > > rather than 'SHOULD'. It might be nicer to all round if it could > > > just be removed and no extended discovery mechanism be mentioned, > > > but we have realities to consider such as an iSCSI array > won't get > > > Microsoft certification unless it supports at least basic iSNS - > > > running code and consensus. > > > > > > The one good thing we have now is that iSNS is indeed now an IETF > > > protocol (RFC 4171) and the original argument for SLP was that it > > > was an existing RFC. So the argument for using SLP ahead > of iSNS is > > > no longer relevant. > > > > > > So if pushed I'd write something like: > > > > > > "iSCSI equipment that need discovery functions beyond SendTargets > > > should implement iSNS for extended discovery management > capabilities > > > and maximum interoperability." > > > > > > Since any unit that implements SLP or even LDAP as a discovery > > > mechanism is not going to interoperate with the majority > of systems, > > > I'd hesitate to even mention them. However, if anyone feels > > > strongly that SLP deserves some mention, then by all means do so, > > > just please don't assert it too strongly. > > > > > > One final point. Given that iSNS has won the consensus > argument, is > > > there a case for turning the "should' in the above sentence to > >"SHOULD" ? > > > > > > Mark. > > > > > > > > > At 23:54 21/05/2010, Black_David@emc.com wrote: > > > > > 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. > > > > > > > >This is interesting. RFC 3720 (main iSCSI spec) never mentions > > > >SLP. RFC 3721 is not a Standards Track RFC, but that's not a > > > >reason not to update it (if people will excuse the > double negative). > > > > > > > >So, Mark, could you send an email to the list with > proposed text on > > > >SLP that you'd like to see in the new consolidated iSCSI > draft (no > > > >more than a few sentences, please)? If that text (as > revised) is > > > >acceptable to the WG, the result would go into the new > consolidated > > > >iSCSI draft, and RFC 3721 would be added to the list of > RFCs that > > > >are being updated by that draft. > > > > > > > >Thanks, > > > >--David > > > >---------------------------------------------------- > > > >David L. Black, Distinguished Engineer EMC Corporation, > 176 South > > > >St., Hopkinton, MA 01748 > > > >+1 (508) 293-7953 FAX: +1 (508) 293-7786 > > > >black_david@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 >
- Re: [storm] Removing iSCSI Markers? Asgeir Eiriksson
- [storm] Draft minutes from Anaheim Black_David
- Re: [storm] Draft minutes from Anaheim Mark S. Edwards
- Re: [storm] Draft minutes from Anaheim Knight, Frederick
- [storm] Removing iSCSI Markers? Mallikarjun Chadalapaka
- Re: [storm] Removing iSCSI Markers? Paul Koning
- Re: [storm] Removing iSCSI Markers? Paul Koning
- Re: [storm] Removing iSCSI Markers? Mark S. Edwards
- Re: [storm] Removing iSCSI Markers? Stephen Bailey
- Re: [storm] Removing iSCSI Markers? Asgeir Eiriksson
- Re: [storm] Removing iSCSI Markers? Mark S. Edwards
- Re: [storm] Removing iSCSI Markers? Mallikarjun Chadalapaka
- Re: [storm] Removing iSCSI Markers? William Stouder-Studenmund
- Re: [storm] Removing iSCSI Markers? Julian Satran
- Re: [storm] Removing iSCSI Markers? Asgeir Eiriksson
- Re: [storm] Removing iSCSI Markers? Caitlin Bestler
- Re: [storm] Removing iSCSI Markers? Pat Thaler
- Re: [storm] Removing iSCSI Markers? Mark Bakke (mbakke)
- Re: [storm] Removing iSCSI Markers? David Harrington
- Re: [storm] Removing iSCSI Markers? Mallikarjun Chadalapaka
- Re: [storm] Removing iSCSI Markers? Black_David
- [storm] iSCSI feature removal: SLP ? Black_David
- Re: [storm] iSCSI feature removal: SLP ? Mark S. Edwards
- Re: [storm] iSCSI feature removal: SLP ? david.black
- Re: [storm] iSCSI feature removal: SLP ? Mark S. Edwards
- Re: [storm] iSCSI feature removal: SLP ? David Harrington
- Re: [storm] iSCSI feature removal: SLP ? Mallikarjun Chadalapaka
- Re: [storm] iSCSI feature removal: SLP ? David Harrington
- Re: [storm] iSCSI feature removal: SLP ? Mallikarjun Chadalapaka
- Re: [storm] iSCSI feature removal: SLP ? David Harrington
- Re: [storm] iSCSI feature removal: SLP ? Mallikarjun Chadalapaka
- Re: [storm] iSCSI feature removal: SLP ? Mark S. Edwards
- Re: [storm] iSCSI feature removal: SLP ? David Harrington