Re: [storm] iSCSI and SCSI error examples with the new key
<Black_David@emc.com> Mon, 08 March 2010 08:06 UTC
Return-Path: <Black_David@emc.com>
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 2DD843A63EB for <storm@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 8 Mar 2010 00:06:46 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
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 GI4hw+Xgu6ZC for <storm@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 8 Mar 2010 00:06:45 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mexforward.lss.emc.com (mexforward.lss.emc.com [128.222.32.20]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C9D393A677D for <storm@ietf.org>; Mon, 8 Mar 2010 00:06:44 -0800 (PST)
Received: from hop04-l1d11-si01.isus.emc.com (HOP04-L1D11-SI01.isus.emc.com [10.254.111.54]) by mexforward.lss.emc.com (Switch-3.3.2/Switch-3.1.7) with ESMTP id o2886lr0001885 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Mon, 8 Mar 2010 03:06:47 -0500
Received: from mailhub.lss.emc.com (nagas.lss.emc.com [10.254.144.15]) by hop04-l1d11-si01.isus.emc.com (RSA Interceptor); Mon, 8 Mar 2010 03:06:35 -0500
Received: from corpussmtp3.corp.emc.com (corpussmtp3.corp.emc.com [10.254.169.196]) by mailhub.lss.emc.com (Switch-3.4.2/Switch-3.3.2mp) with ESMTP id o2886ZAe013960; Mon, 8 Mar 2010 03:06:35 -0500
Received: from CORPUSMX80B.corp.emc.com ([10.254.89.203]) by corpussmtp3.corp.emc.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959); Mon, 8 Mar 2010 03:06:35 -0500
x-mimeole: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5
Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Date: Mon, 08 Mar 2010 03:06:33 -0500
Message-ID: <C2D311A6F086424F99E385949ECFEBCB01DBD1B8@CORPUSMX80B.corp.emc.com>
In-Reply-To: <SNT131-ds117BCEDF39D1082D0685E4A0350@phx.gbl>
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
Thread-Topic: iSCSI and SCSI error examples with the new key
Thread-Index: Acp9CvSVV8/I8P2bTk+b/IEubj9eOA4kNX0gAjqyArAAA+jBcA==
References: <20091214221501.45F933A6826@core3.amsl.com> <C2D311A6F086424F99E385949ECFEBCB01BCDFD5@CORPUSMX80B.corp.emc.com> <SNT131-ds117BCEDF39D1082D0685E4A0350@phx.gbl>
From: Black_David@emc.com
To: cbm@chadalapaka.com, storm@ietf.org
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 08 Mar 2010 08:06:35.0067 (UTC) FILETIME=[454F30B0:01CABE96]
X-EMM-EM: Active
Subject: Re: [storm] iSCSI and SCSI error examples with the new key
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, 08 Mar 2010 08:06:46 -0000
Aside from wondering about a better key name, I think that writeup is good. Thanks, --David > -----Original Message----- > From: Mallikarjun Chadalapaka [mailto:cbm@chadalapaka.com] > Sent: Monday, March 08, 2010 1:27 AM > To: Black, David; storm@ietf.org > Subject: iSCSI and SCSI error examples with the new key > > Thanks David for the review. > > > I strongly suggest moving the "Note that ..." paragraph from Section 9.1.1 > to > > Section 6. > > I agree, it's a good idea. I also like the examples suggestion. I just a > wordsmithed yours a bit: > > - An iSCSI implementation may negotiate PDUFormatForSAMUpdate to "Yes" but > still may respond to the new task management functions with a "Task > management function not supported" (that Response reports a SCSI error that > prevents the function from being performed, and does not conflict with the > negotiated "Yes" value for the iSCSI key). > - In contrast, if PDUFormatForSAMUpdate key is negotiated to "Yes", an iSCSI > implementation MUST NOT respond with a "Function rejected" response to any > Task Management Function Request PDU that requests one of the new task > management functions added in this document in Section 8.2 (that Response > reports an iSCSI protocol error and thus conflicts with the operational > value of "Yes" for the key). > > > Mallikarjun > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: storm-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:storm-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of > > Black_David@emc.com > > Sent: Wednesday, February 24, 2010 2:34 PM > > To: storm@ietf.org > > Cc: Black_David@emc.com > > Subject: [storm] Comments on draft-ietf-storm-iscsi-sam-00.txt > > > > <WG Co-Chair hat OFF> > > > > With the WG last call on the iFCP-related drafts completed (summary message > > coming soon from Tom), it's time to turn attention to this draft. This draft > > has been subject to significant review from a number of iSCSI-knowledgeable > > people prior to submission, so it's in very good shape for a -00 draft. > > > > I have a few comments, mostly intended to start discussion. To respond to > > this message, please pick one of the comments below to respond to in a single > > email message, and CHANGE THE SUBJECT LINE of the email. > > > > [1] UML, model and terminology mapping. > > > > The UML, model and terminology mapping in Sections 3-5 need to be done, and in > > particular it's crucial to permit the device structure example shown at the > > end of Section 5 (RFC 3720 does not permit this, but I suspect that to be an > > oversight as opposed to intentional). I wonder whether this material would be > > better moved to the consolidated iSCSI draft, as that may be a more > > appropriate home for it; that decision does not need to be made now. > > > > [2] RFC 3720 change summary > > > > I would like to see a "Summary of Changes to RFC 3720" section, this could be > > accomplished by expanding Section 2.3 to list the specific changes, which are: > > > > - iSCSI Node may contain both initiator and target functionality (Section 5) > > > > - PRI field for SCSI Command Priority added to SCSI Command PDU (Section 7.1.1) > > - Status Qualifier field added to SCSI Response PDU (Section 7.2.1) > > - Sense data may be returned (via Autosense) for any SCSI status, not > > just CHECK CONDITION (Section 7.2.2) > > - Four new task management functions: QUERY TASK, QUERY TASK SET, I_T NEXUS RESET, > > QUERY ASYNCHRONOUS EVENT (Section 8.2). > > - New "function succeeded" response code for the new task management functions (Section 8.3.1) > > - New PDUFormatForSAMUpdate text key to negotiate iSCSI support for the above > > features (except for "iSCSI node may contain both initiator and target > > functionality", which should be allowed no matter what, IMHO). > > > > [3] Section 9.1.1. I don't like the phrase "RFC compliance level" and suggest > > replacing the "This key ..." paragraph with > > > > This key is used to negotiate presence of iSCSI support for the features defined in this RFC. > > > > I strongly suggest moving the "Note that ..." paragraph from Section 9.1.1 to > > Section 6. I would also add an example. Here's a possible example that should > > help illuminate the distinction between SCSI and iSCSI errors: > > - An iSCSI implementation may negotiate this new key to "Yes" but respond to > > the new task management functions with a "Task management function not > > supported" (that response reports a SCSI error that prevents the function from > > being performed). > > - In contrast but if that key is negotiated to "Yes", an iSCSI implementation > > must not reject a Task Management Function Request PDU that requests one of > > the new task management functions (that reject reports an iSCSI protocol error). > > > > [4] Nit: "compliant" > > > > I don't like use of this word in RFCs, but this is an editorial matter of > > taste. Here are a couple of suggested rewordings that I think also improve > > clarity: > > > > - Section 7.1.1 > > OLD > > As defined in Section 10, iSCSI PDU Formats of [RFC3720], > > compliant senders already set this field to zero. > > NEW > > Section 10 of [RFC3720] requires that senders set this field to zero. > > > > - Section 8.2 > > OLD > > Any compliant sender MUST NOT send these task management function > > requests unless ... > > NEW > > These task management function request MUST NOT be sent unless ... > > > > [5] Minor Nit: text key name > > > > While PDUFormatForSAMUpdate is not the key name I would have chosen, I didn't > > put in all the time and effort to write this draft ;-). That key name is ok > > with me. > > > > I'll plan to review this draft again when it gets to WG Last Call ... > > > > 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] I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-storm-iscsi-sam-00.… Internet-Drafts
- [storm] Comments on draft-ietf-storm-iscsi-sam-00… Black_David
- [storm] iSCSI and SCSI error examples with the ne… Mallikarjun Chadalapaka
- [storm] UML, Model and Terminology Mallikarjun Chadalapaka
- Re: [storm] UML, Model and Terminology Black_David
- Re: [storm] iSCSI and SCSI error examples with th… Black_David