[storm] Removing iSCSI Markers?

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