Re: [storm] Consolidated draft

Mallikarjun Chadalapaka <> Wed, 17 August 2011 03:23 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3E21311E80BF for <>; Tue, 16 Aug 2011 20:23:37 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.344
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.344 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.255, BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id yrPoIZrVtpBu for <>; Tue, 16 Aug 2011 20:23:36 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6BB0711E808B for <>; Tue, 16 Aug 2011 20:23:36 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from SNT131-DS17 ([]) by with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675); Tue, 16 Aug 2011 20:24:23 -0700
X-Originating-IP: []
X-Originating-Email: []
Message-ID: <SNT131-ds174BF9335D7469C71960B6A0280@phx.gbl>
From: Mallikarjun Chadalapaka <>
To: "'Knight, Frederick'" <>, <>
References: <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Date: Tue, 16 Aug 2011 20:24:23 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 14.0
Thread-Index: AQHBoKWCTGl7RQbUoEuCbM1a57YeepU11haA
Content-Language: en-us
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 17 Aug 2011 03:24:23.0953 (UTC) FILETIME=[29467810:01CC5C8D]
Subject: Re: [storm] Consolidated draft
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: Wed, 17 Aug 2011 03:23:37 -0000

Thanks Fred for the feedback.

On #1, I will update the reference to SAM-2, as the rest of the spec is
based on SAM-2 (and SAM-4 compliance is coming in the new other draft).

On #2, RFC 3721 is an Informational RFC - while the consolidated draft adds
a clarification that overrides some 3721 verbiage  (SLP SHOULD requirement)
to remove any implementer ambiguity, the consolidated draft does not
consolidate that RFC.  The reason was that this is a standards-track
document, and we did not want to include all the informational text into
this.  That's the reason for the current Abstract wording that you cite

To explain "whenever there is such a question", the answer is all of those
you have listed (I think of Conflict/Disagreement/Difference as the same in
this context), :) 



From: [] On Behalf Of
Knight, Frederick
Sent: Monday, August 15, 2011 9:23 PM
Subject: [storm] Consolidated draft

Here are a couple of minor comments on the consolidated draft:

1) an observation in the abstract is the sentence:

The iSCSI protocol aims to be fully compliant with
  the standardized SCSI Architecture Model (SAM).

In fact, "SAM" is incorrect here.  SAM is not a generic name; SAM is the
name of the very first version of the SCSI Architecture Model.  In fact, the
original iSCSI was based on SAM-2, not SAM.  Maybe it should leave out the
use of a meaningful SCSI acronym (SAM) and just say:

The iSCSI protocol aims to be fully compliant with the standardized SCSI

2) Last paragraph of abstract:

This document consolidates RFCs 3720, 3980, 4850 and 5048 into a
  single document and makes additional updates to the consolidated
  specification. This document also updates RFC 3721. The text in
  this document thus supersedes the text in RFCs 3720, 3721, 3980,
  4850 and 5048 whenever there is such a question.

The first sentence does not list 3721 as part of the consolidation, but the
last sentence says this document supersedes 3721.  It seems that in order to
supersede 3721, it must consolidate 3721 into this single document.  The
middle sentence ("This document also updates RFC3721.") adds confusion.  Is
it that just some of 3721 is consolidated, and other parts are not
consolidated, so in fact, only some of 3721 is superseded?

The last sentence is also missing something . "The text in this document
supersedes the text in . whenever there is such a question." - what
question?  Does this mean whenever there is a conflict?; or whenever they
disagree?; or whenever there is a difference?