Re: [storm] Gen-ART Review of draft-ietf-storm-iscsimib-03.txt

"Romascanu, Dan (Dan)" <dromasca@avaya.com> Wed, 03 April 2013 11:31 UTC

Return-Path: <dromasca@avaya.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 0702C21F8A6D; Wed, 3 Apr 2013 04:31:08 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -103.161
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-103.161 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.562, BAYES_00=-2.599, 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 KOyD216aLnM7; Wed, 3 Apr 2013 04:31:07 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from p-us1-iereast-outbound.us1.avaya.com (p-us1-iereast-outbound.us1.avaya.com [135.11.29.13]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 695AE21F8A7E; Wed, 3 Apr 2013 04:31:07 -0700 (PDT)
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AgIFALh+MVHGmAcF/2dsb2JhbABEgma/XoEAFnOCHwEBAQEDEig/DAQCAQgNCA0UCQcyFBEBAQQBDQUIGodxAaQnnEOObCYLB4JfYQOcXIpSgwiCJw
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.84,766,1355115600"; d="scan'208";a="5335621"
Received: from unknown (HELO co300216-co-erhwest.avaya.com) ([198.152.7.5]) by p-us1-iereast-outbound.us1.avaya.com with ESMTP; 03 Apr 2013 07:31:06 -0400
Received: from unknown (HELO AZ-FFEXHC01.global.avaya.com) ([135.64.58.11]) by co300216-co-erhwest-out.avaya.com with ESMTP; 03 Apr 2013 07:28:41 -0400
Received: from AZ-FFEXMB04.global.avaya.com ([fe80::6db7:b0af:8480:c126]) by AZ-FFEXHC01.global.avaya.com ([135.64.58.11]) with mapi id 14.02.0328.009; Wed, 3 Apr 2013 07:31:04 -0400
From: "Romascanu, Dan (Dan)" <dromasca@avaya.com>
To: "Prakash Venkatesen, ERS-HCLTech" <prakashvn@hcl.com>, "gen-art@ietf.org" <gen-art@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: Gen-ART Review of draft-ietf-storm-iscsimib-03.txt
Thread-Index: Ac38ru1wNGisP6GHRvWY2E+60/tmIwzEpz/hACbySkA=
Date: Wed, 3 Apr 2013 11:31:03 +0000
Message-ID: <9904FB1B0159DA42B0B887B7FA8119CA0C06C6@AZ-FFEXMB04.global.avaya.com>
References: <9904FB1B0159DA42B0B887B7FA8119CA07867E@AZ-FFEXMB04.global.avaya.com> <62DC16C614A9554F81C8E2E5C174A98838DA0C7742@CHN-HCLT-EVS16.HCLT.CORP.HCL.IN>
In-Reply-To: <62DC16C614A9554F81C8E2E5C174A98838DA0C7742@CHN-HCLT-EVS16.HCLT.CORP.HCL.IN>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [135.64.58.46]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Wed, 03 Apr 2013 10:17:32 -0700
Cc: "storm@ietf.org" <storm@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [storm] Gen-ART Review of draft-ietf-storm-iscsimib-03.txt
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: Wed, 03 Apr 2013 11:31:08 -0000

Hi Prakash,

Thank you for addressing the issues raised in the Gen-ART review. The changes made on issues 2 and 3 are fine, however, one clarification is still needed regarding the first issue. See below (agreed stuff deleted).





> -----Original Message-----
> From: Prakash Venkatesen, ERS-HCLTech [mailto:prakashvn@hcl.com]
> 
> Summary: Almost Ready
> 
> Major issues:
> 
> 1) This document will obsolete (when approved) RFC 4544, and add support
> for iSCSI protocol evolution according to the consolidated version of
> the iSCSI protocol (as per draft-ietf-storm-iscsi-cons) and for the
> updates to iSCSI (as per draft-ietf-storm-iscsi-sam) for ProtocolLevel.
> There is no indication however in for the operators when an upgrade is
> recommended or becomes mandatory, and which version of the protocol is
> to be used during the transition, function of the iSCSI versions of the
> protocol.
> 
> Prakash> As per rough consensus of STORM group, the new features are
> required when implementation supports a value of the iSCSIProtocolLevel
> key of 2 or greater. The new draft has this change.
> 

[[DR]] 'the new features are required' means that the MIB support MUST be updated accordingly when the iSCSI updates are deployed? In other words, would an RFC 4544 - based implementation break, or it will continue to work (with functional limitations) until the updated MIB version is introduced? 

Thanks and Regards,

Dan