Re: [storm] iSCSI feature removal: SLP ?
<david.black@emc.com> Wed, 23 June 2010 20:26 UTC
Return-Path: <david.black@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 A053728C0FC for <storm@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 23 Jun 2010 13:26:05 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.33
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.33 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.269, 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 WnWddbwhceIm for <storm@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 23 Jun 2010 13:26:04 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mexforward.lss.emc.com (mexforward.lss.emc.com [128.222.32.20]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6EF7C28C0DD for <storm@ietf.org>; Wed, 23 Jun 2010 13:26:04 -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-3.3.2/Switch-3.1.7) with ESMTP id o5NKQBC6016326 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Wed, 23 Jun 2010 16:26:11 -0400
Received: from mailhub.lss.emc.com (nagas.lss.emc.com [10.254.144.15]) by hop04-l1d11-si01.isus.emc.com (RSA Interceptor); Wed, 23 Jun 2010 16:26:00 -0400
Received: from corpussmtp4.corp.emc.com (corpussmtp4.corp.emc.com [10.254.169.197]) by mailhub.lss.emc.com (Switch-3.4.2/Switch-3.3.2mp) with ESMTP id o5NKPx4e028120; Wed, 23 Jun 2010 16:26:00 -0400
Received: from CORPUSMX80B.corp.emc.com ([10.254.89.203]) by corpussmtp4.corp.emc.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675); Wed, 23 Jun 2010 16:25:59 -0400
x-mimeole: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5
Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Date: Wed, 23 Jun 2010 16:25:58 -0400
Message-ID: <C2D311A6F086424F99E385949ECFEBCB02ED59ED@CORPUSMX80B.corp.emc.com>
In-Reply-To: <473934.13068.qm@smtp114.biz.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
Thread-Topic: [storm] iSCSI feature removal: SLP ?
Thread-Index: AcsGV/uNSYAqWQ+5QV6cWoFHRoVNFAMuZn1w
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>
From: david.black@emc.com
To: marke@muttsnuts.com, storm@ietf.org
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 23 Jun 2010 20:25:59.0648 (UTC) FILETIME=[4ADC4600:01CB1312]
X-EMM-EM: Active
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: Wed, 23 Jun 2010 20:26:05 -0000
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
- 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