[storm] iSCSI feature removal: SLP ?

<Black_David@emc.com> Fri, 21 May 2010 22:54 UTC

Return-Path: <Black_David@emc.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 17A6B3A690B for <storm@core3.amsl.com>; Fri, 21 May 2010 15:54:58 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.999
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.999 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_50=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
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 FurjzEXv9dN1 for <storm@core3.amsl.com>; Fri, 21 May 2010 15:54:57 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mexforward.lss.emc.com (mexforward.lss.emc.com [128.222.32.20]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 17AD23A6942 for <storm@ietf.org>; Fri, 21 May 2010 15:54:56 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from hop04-l1d11-si03.isus.emc.com (HOP04-L1D11-SI03.isus.emc.com [10.254.111.23]) by mexforward.lss.emc.com (Switch-3.3.2/Switch-3.1.7) with ESMTP id o4LMsoB1018530 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Fri, 21 May 2010 18:54:50 -0400
Received: from mailhub.lss.emc.com (nagas.lss.emc.com [10.254.144.15]) by hop04-l1d11-si03.isus.emc.com (RSA Interceptor); Fri, 21 May 2010 18:54:43 -0400
Received: from corpussmtp5.corp.emc.com (corpussmtp5.corp.emc.com [128.221.166.229]) by mailhub.lss.emc.com (Switch-3.4.2/Switch-3.3.2mp) with ESMTP id o4LMsg3j013138; Fri, 21 May 2010 18:54:42 -0400
Received: from CORPUSMX80B.corp.emc.com ([10.254.89.201]) by corpussmtp5.corp.emc.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959); Fri, 21 May 2010 18:54:42 -0400
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5
x-cr-hashedpuzzle: AUAj CWrm DIdV DRW9 Dr+1 F0CB GVox G9F3 Kdm6 KqOy LI+7 Nqs4 Qdzj Td0R U4pU VclL; 2; bQBhAHIAawBlAEAAbQB1AHQAdABzAG4AdQB0AHMALgBjAG8AbQA7AHMAdABvAHIAbQBAAGkAZQB0AGYALgBvAHIAZwA=; Sosha1_v1; 7; {C22F8567-0FB6-4190-ACCB-AC596DCBA4BC}; YgBsAGEAYwBrAF8AZABhAHYAaQBkAEAAZQBtAGMALgBjAG8AbQA=; Fri, 21 May 2010 22:54:36 GMT; aQBTAEMAUwBJACAAZgBlAGEAdAB1AHIAZQAgAHIAZQBtAG8AdgBhAGwAOgAgAFMATABQACAAPwA=
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
x-cr-puzzleid: {C22F8567-0FB6-4190-ACCB-AC596DCBA4BC}
Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
Date: Fri, 21 May 2010 18:54:36 -0400
Message-ID: <C2D311A6F086424F99E385949ECFEBCB02A28E1D@CORPUSMX80B.corp.emc.com>
In-Reply-To: <690958.35528.qm@smtp111.biz.mail.re2.yahoo.com>
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
Thread-Topic: iSCSI feature removal: SLP ?
thread-index: AcrNtUD342PVMw5wRZmdwMNkUDx63Argpxfg
References: <C2D311A6F086424F99E385949ECFEBCB02162B4B@CORPUSMX80B.corp.emc.com> <690958.35528.qm@smtp111.biz.mail.re2.yahoo.com>
From: <Black_David@emc.com>
To: <marke@muttsnuts.com>, <storm@ietf.org>
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 21 May 2010 22:54:42.0403 (UTC) FILETIME=[999AE330:01CAF938]
X-EMM-EM: Active
Subject: [storm] iSCSI feature removal: SLP ?
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: Fri, 21 May 2010 22:54:58 -0000

> 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.

This is interesting.  RFC 3720 (main iSCSI spec) never mentions SLP.  RFC 3721 is not a Standards Track RFC, but that's not a reason not to update it (if people will excuse the double negative).

So, Mark, could you send an email to the list with proposed text on SLP that you'd like to see in the new consolidated iSCSI draft (no more than a few sentences, please)?  If that text (as revised) is acceptable to the WG, the result would go into the new consolidated iSCSI draft, and RFC 3721 would be added to the list of RFCs that are being updated by that draft.

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
----------------------------------------------------