[storm] Removing iSCSI Markers?

"Mallikarjun Chadalapaka" <cbm@chadalapaka.com> Tue, 30 March 2010 00:35 UTC

Return-Path: <cbm@chadalapaka.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 2DCA73A682F for <storm@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 29 Mar 2010 17:35:28 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 1.131
X-Spam-Level: *
X-Spam-Status: No, score=1.131 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_50=0.001, DNS_FROM_OPENWHOIS=1.13]
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 R7tYhDU9w0Sb for <storm@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 29 Mar 2010 17:35:27 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from snt0-omc4-s4.snt0.hotmail.com (snt0-omc4-s4.snt0.hotmail.com [65.55.90.207]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 312123A6774 for <storm@ietf.org>; Mon, 29 Mar 2010 17:35:27 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from SNT131-DS3 ([65.55.90.199]) by snt0-omc4-s4.snt0.hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959); Mon, 29 Mar 2010 17:32:37 -0700
X-Originating-IP: [15.251.201.73]
X-Originating-Email: [cbm@chadalapaka.com]
Message-ID: <SNT131-ds389E5D120CA34D81D341FA01F0@phx.gbl>
From: "Mallikarjun Chadalapaka" <cbm@chadalapaka.com>
To: "'Mark S. Edwards'" <marke@muttsnuts.com>, <storm@ietf.org>
References: <C2D311A6F086424F99E385949ECFEBCB02162B4B@CORPUSMX80B.corp.emc.com> <690958.35528.qm@smtp111.biz.mail.re2.yahoo.com>
In-Reply-To: <690958.35528.qm@smtp111.biz.mail.re2.yahoo.com>
Date: Mon, 29 Mar 2010 17:32:36 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 12.0
Thread-Index: AcrNtTVFuR/8tnJ0Rs+H0H+aaThORgB6nI4g
Content-Language: en-us
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 30 Mar 2010 00:32:37.0690 (UTC) FILETIME=[7FA7C9A0:01CACFA0]
Subject: [storm] Removing iSCSI Markers?
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: Tue, 30 Mar 2010 00:35:28 -0000

Just to clarify...

> On another removal topic, I seem to recall that Mallikarjun also said
> that he was removing markers.  

I had only said that it's one of the items I had heard prior requests on
(that it be removed).  Thanks for initiating the list discussion though! 

> but I do wonder if this will affect any HBA implementations ?

Good question, I don't know.  HBA vendors, especially iSCSI/iSER/RNIC
"roto-tilled" implementations, please chime in.


Mallikarjun



> -----Original Message-----
> From: storm-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:storm-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of
Mark
> S. Edwards
> Sent: Saturday, March 27, 2010 6:56 AM
> To: storm@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [storm] Draft minutes from Anaheim
> 
> 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.
> 
> 
> On another removal topic, I seem to recall that Mallikarjun also said
> that he was removing markers.  I don't particularly object to this
> but I do wonder if this will affect any HBA implementations ?
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Mark.
> 
> 
> At 06:59 27/03/2010, Black_David@emc.com wrote:
> >Draft minutes are attached - please comment, correct, etc.
> >
> >Also, in the absence of objection on this mailing list, decisions
> >recorded in the minutes are considered to be the rough consensus of
> >this WG, *except* that two issues were identified as sufficiently
> >important to discuss separately on the list (see separate messages):
> >         - Text negotiation key for new iSCSI features (discussion
> > in progress)
> >         - Features to remove from iSCSI (discussion to be started)
> >
> >Many thanks to Craig Carlson for taking notes during the meeting.
> >
> >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
> 
> _______________________________________________
> storm mailing list
> storm@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/storm