Re: [storm] WG Last Call comments on consolidated iSCSI draft

"Knight, Frederick" <Frederick.Knight@netapp.com> Fri, 26 August 2011 12:50 UTC

Return-Path: <Frederick.Knight@netapp.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 39C6621F8B56 for <storm@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 26 Aug 2011 05:50:18 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -10.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8]
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 vvvsQxjRuKJV for <storm@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 26 Aug 2011 05:50:17 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mx2.netapp.com (mx2.netapp.com [216.240.18.37]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BA32221F8B51 for <storm@ietf.org>; Fri, 26 Aug 2011 05:50:17 -0700 (PDT)
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.68,285,1312182000"; d="scan'208";a="574842679"
Received: from smtp2.corp.netapp.com ([10.57.159.114]) by mx2-out.netapp.com with ESMTP; 26 Aug 2011 05:51:34 -0700
Received: from sacrsexc2-prd.hq.netapp.com (sacrsexc2-prd.hq.netapp.com [10.99.115.28]) by smtp2.corp.netapp.com (8.13.1/8.13.1/NTAP-1.6) with ESMTP id p7QCpXXs001374; Fri, 26 Aug 2011 05:51:34 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from rtprsexc1-prd.hq.netapp.com ([10.100.161.114]) by sacrsexc2-prd.hq.netapp.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959); Fri, 26 Aug 2011 05:51:27 -0700
Received: from RTPMVEXC1-PRD.hq.netapp.com ([10.100.161.111]) by rtprsexc1-prd.hq.netapp.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959); Fri, 26 Aug 2011 08:51:24 -0400
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5
Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Date: Fri, 26 Aug 2011 08:51:23 -0400
Message-ID: <AC32D7C72530234288643DD5F1435D5310EDE150@RTPMVEXC1-PRD.hq.netapp.com>
In-Reply-To: <7C4DFCE962635144B8FAE8CA11D0BF1E05896E6CF8@MX14A.corp.emc.com>
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
Thread-Topic: [storm] WG Last Call comments on consolidated iSCSI draft
Thread-Index: AcxjcZ2N3riNUbfqTsqnC/4OBaAg1QAeazXw
References: <7C4DFCE962635144B8FAE8CA11D0BF1E05896E6CF8@MX14A.corp.emc.com>
From: "Knight, Frederick" <Frederick.Knight@netapp.com>
To: <david.black@emc.com>
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 26 Aug 2011 12:51:24.0118 (UTC) FILETIME=[DC976F60:01CC63EE]
Cc: storm@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [storm] WG Last Call comments on consolidated iSCSI 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: Fri, 26 Aug 2011 12:50:18 -0000

I disagree.

1) while not common, the hosts that use it, do need it;
2) the original 3720 text contains a SHOULD; and
3) there is no good reason for us to be weakening this statement.

	Fred Knight
	NetApp

-----Original Message-----
From: david.black@emc.com [mailto:david.black@emc.com] 
Sent: Thursday, August 25, 2011 5:55 PM
To: storm@ietf.org
Subject: [storm] WG Last Call comments on consolidated iSCSI draft

<...text removed...>

[D] Section 10.2 contains a "SHOULD" requirement for ACA
(Auto-Contingent Allegiance) support.
As ACA support in SCSI initiators is not common, I suggest weakening
this to a MAY requirement.