Re: [storm] iSCSI Node Name for SCSI (composite) Device

<> Fri, 09 September 2011 10:48 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 45C2421F8B09 for <>; Fri, 9 Sep 2011 03:48:16 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -106.599
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-106.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 4NXbqCNu53Qd for <>; Fri, 9 Sep 2011 03:48:15 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id AC04921F8AF3 for <>; Fri, 9 Sep 2011 03:48:15 -0700 (PDT)
X-Loopcount0: from
From: <>
To: <>, <>
Date: Fri, 9 Sep 2011 05:50:05 -0500
Thread-Topic: [storm] iSCSI Node Name for SCSI (composite) Device
Thread-Index: Acxuj2l2QYR5jDLeQ/6sfbz+l/piAQATnEyQ
Message-ID: <09787EF419216C41A903FD14EE5506DD0153553162@AUSX7MCPC103.AMER.DELL.COM>
References: <SNT131-ds428634E0048BE2FF6E211A0010@phx.gbl>
In-Reply-To: <SNT131-ds428634E0048BE2FF6E211A0010@phx.gbl>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
acceptlanguage: en-US
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Subject: Re: [storm] iSCSI Node Name for SCSI (composite) Device
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Storage Maintenance WG <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 09 Sep 2011 10:48:16 -0000

I'm wondering if this creates an issue with CHAP based authentication.  Assuming the node name is the CHAP username, you'd have a CHAP secret associated with that name.  Since there are two roles, it means the same secret is used for both directions, which violates an explicit prohibition in the existing spec (because it enables reflection attacks).

Is that not an issue here, or is it one that can be avoided by additional constraints?  If so it would be worth spelling out how.


-----Original Message-----
From: [] On Behalf Of Mallikarjun Chadalapaka
Sent: Thursday, September 08, 2011 9:41 PM
Subject: [storm] iSCSI Node Name for SCSI (composite) Device

In reviewing some editorial feedback received offline, we have identified a potential misalignment between SAM-5 and iSCSI.  And it turns out we can address it with a simple requirement, which the drafts' authors wanted to surface to the list.  

SAM-5 models SCSI Device Name as an attribute of a SCSI Device class, even if the SCSI Device is a composite device containing a SCSI Initiator Device
and a SCSI Target Device.   iSCSI in contrast models an iSCSI Initiator Name
as an attribute of iSCSI Initiator Node, and models iSCSI Target Name as that for iSCSI Target Node.  As the new consolidated draft now explicitly allows iSCSI Nodes to be SCSI composite Devices, we just need to make sure that a SCSI (composite) Device in iSCSI transport domain would only have one SCSI Device Name.

This can be accomplished by adding the following requirement to the consolidated draft: whenever an iSCSI Node contains an iSCSI Initiator Node and an iSCSI Target Node, the iSCSI Initiator Name MUST be the same as the iSCSI Target Name for the contained Nodes such that there is only one iSCSI Node Name for the iSCSI Node overall.

Please let the list know if you have concerns, or questions about this approach.  Assuming WG consensus on this, we plan to get this - and any related text updates in both drafts - into the next revisions at the end of the Last Call.


Mallikarjun (for all the authors)

storm mailing list