[storm] WG Last Call comments on iSCSI SAM features draft

<david.black@emc.com> Thu, 25 August 2011 22:47 UTC

Return-Path: <david.black@emc.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 9FA7F21F8BB1 for <storm@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 25 Aug 2011 15:47:52 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -106.545
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-106.545 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.054, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, 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 KXBSFnN-4XDc for <storm@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 25 Aug 2011 15:47:52 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mexforward.lss.emc.com (mexforward.lss.emc.com [128.222.32.20]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0554E21F8BB0 for <storm@ietf.org>; Thu, 25 Aug 2011 15:47:51 -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-3.4.3/Switch-3.4.3) with ESMTP id p7PMn4Xs011948 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for <storm@ietf.org>; Thu, 25 Aug 2011 18:49:04 -0400
Received: from mailhub.lss.emc.com (mailhubhoprd04.lss.emc.com [10.254.222.226]) by hop04-l1d11-si01.isus.emc.com (RSA Interceptor) for <storm@ietf.org>; Thu, 25 Aug 2011 18:48:56 -0400
Received: from mxhub25.corp.emc.com (mxhub25.corp.emc.com [10.254.110.181]) by mailhub.lss.emc.com (Switch-3.4.3/Switch-3.4.3) with ESMTP id p7PMmuvj029492 for <storm@ietf.org>; Thu, 25 Aug 2011 18:48:56 -0400
Received: from mx14a.corp.emc.com ([169.254.1.245]) by mxhub25.corp.emc.com ([10.254.110.181]) with mapi; Thu, 25 Aug 2011 18:48:56 -0400
From: <david.black@emc.com>
To: <storm@ietf.org>
Date: Thu, 25 Aug 2011 18:48:54 -0400
Thread-Topic: WG Last Call comments on iSCSI SAM features draft
Thread-Index: AcxjeSqvnot3l3lGSCGpr+++JYemEw==
Message-ID: <7C4DFCE962635144B8FAE8CA11D0BF1E05896E6D0B@MX14A.corp.emc.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
acceptlanguage: en-US
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-EMM-MHVC: 1
Subject: [storm] WG Last Call comments on iSCSI SAM features draft
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: Thu, 25 Aug 2011 22:47:52 -0000

This is mostly with <WG chair hat on>, as the technical contents of this draft have been stable for a while now.

The Updates header and the second paragraph of the Introduction need to be removed.  This draft and the iSCSI consolidated draft will be issued as RFCs simultaneously, hence no Updates pointers are needed - each draft normatively references the other, and that suffices.

The title of this draft needs to change to something more descriptive - only people like Fred, Mallikarjun and yours truly who spend too much time on SCSI know what SAM stands for.  The filename should not change.

As discussed in Quebec City and on the list, the specification of allowed values needs to change for the new iSCSIProtocolLevel key, and there will be some associated changes to allocation policy to get an expert review done by a T10 reviewer before IESG approval of a document that allocates a value for that key.

<WG chair hat off> Also in that text, a minor editorial nit - change "claimed by" to "corresponding to" in the following text:

     Negotiation of the iSCSIProtocolLevel key to a value claimed by
     an RFC indicates that both negotiating parties are compliant to
     the RFC in question, and agree to support the corresponding
     semantics on that iSCSI session.

<WG chair hat on> There should be a new version of the draft coming soon with the above changes - it may be necessary to run a short second WG Last Call to make sure that we have the iSCSIProtocolLevel key specified correctly, including its IANA Considerations.

Thanks,
--David
----------------------------------------------------
David L. Black, Distinguished Engineer
EMC Corporation, 176 South St., Hopkinton, MA  01748
+1 (508) 293-7953             FAX: +1 (508) 293-7786
david.black@emc.com        Mobile: +1 (978) 394-7754
----------------------------------------------------