Re: [storm] iSCSI SAM update: login key

Julian Satran <julian.satran@gmail.com> Tue, 30 March 2010 04:42 UTC

Return-Path: <julian.satran@gmail.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 071893A680E for <storm@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 29 Mar 2010 21:42:20 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.85
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.85 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, DNS_FROM_OPENWHOIS=1.13, RCVD_IN_SORBS_WEB=0.619]
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 EDi-rvJ4IQ-X for <storm@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 29 Mar 2010 21:42:18 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-fx0-f213.google.com (mail-fx0-f213.google.com [209.85.220.213]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3CDD93A68D1 for <storm@ietf.org>; Mon, 29 Mar 2010 21:42:17 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by fxm5 with SMTP id 5so4338715fxm.29 for <storm@ietf.org>; Mon, 29 Mar 2010 21:42:43 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:references:message-id:from:to :in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:x-mailer :mime-version:subject:date:cc; bh=BeQPcznHD1WGM2gOEkt2iN3NOROjdE54wkiQgRJcBD8=; b=V4QgBHVCQPQkJk8GpLCbq1ANA6coWH/q23jQfCttjyJeYGEAgk4JA/MVdk5nmF+jL1 Lu99QZD9cPog07uAG7CnUwf56CTfE/plGeCuS8i6C5h6Nl7tcChP9rpGaI2hF09booaC sMOhVnyKwywWSXbwuWJcFtbltGfLyRKbyqa58=
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=references:message-id:from:to:in-reply-to:content-type :content-transfer-encoding:x-mailer:mime-version:subject:date:cc; b=PNKTuWz3PQdIP3HW8kUanSvdsAosSb8rczt9k8eY3cd79DM9dDccMniGN65THk/6GD k2LcdRw+jym3jEIzThCljANXV3rfpWlfUlMKXZCOEOFtT9GYIayuQmjdigjMU9qc/dS3 611E/Ap2dbZeWTQtOlZNv1znLGNZHBBjrPsGY=
Received: by 10.223.17.23 with SMTP id q23mr5874883faa.65.1269924163509; Mon, 29 Mar 2010 21:42:43 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [172.16.1.196] (IGLD-84-228-19-194.inter.net.il [84.228.19.194]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id 14sm3576681fxm.1.2010.03.29.21.42.41 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5); Mon, 29 Mar 2010 21:42:42 -0700 (PDT)
References: <C2D311A6F086424F99E385949ECFEBCB021629C4@CORPUSMX80B.corp.emc.com> <SNT131-ds10A1204F54D78F9972EB8FA0220@phx.gbl> <C2D311A6F086424F99E385949ECFEBCB02162B43@CORPUSMX80B.corp.emc.com> <4BADAC54.10705@gmail.com> <SNT131-ds5790403C32823DD1AD5C9A01F0@phx.gbl> <C2D311A6F086424F99E385949ECFEBCB02163229@CORPUSMX80B.corp.emc.com>
Message-Id: <9F004C34-312E-45D5-B868-8DAF62CBD43E@gmail.com>
From: Julian Satran <julian.satran@gmail.com>
To: "<Black_David@emc.com>" <Black_David@emc.com>
In-Reply-To: <C2D311A6F086424F99E385949ECFEBCB02163229@CORPUSMX80B.corp.emc.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed; delsp=yes
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: iPhone Mail (7D11)
Mime-Version: 1.0 (iPhone Mail 7D11)
Date: Tue, 30 Mar 2010 07:42:46 +0300
Cc: "Black_David@emc.com" <Black_David@emc.com>, "<storm@ietf.org>" <storm@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [storm] iSCSI SAM update: login key
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 04:42:20 -0000

It was just cosmetics. Anyhow with error recovery level really meant  
level. I wonder if with protocol we want every level to include all  
the preceding levels (including some obsolition) - in which case level  
is appropriate or merely a combination of things in which case I would  
suggest bundle. Also if it level the negotiation is numeric while for  
a combination it is boolean.

Regards,
Julo

On 30/03/2010, at 04:59, <Black_David@emc.com> wrote:

> <WG co-chair hat OFF>
>
> We already have ErrorRecoveryLevel, so I don't see a problem with a
> second key that ends in "Level".
>
> Thanks,
> --David
>
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Mallikarjun Chadalapaka [mailto:cbm@chadalapaka.com]
>> Sent: Monday, March 29, 2010 8:15 PM
>> To: 'Julian Satran'; Black, David
>> Cc: storm@ietf.org
>> Subject: RE: [storm] iSCSI SAM update: login key
>>
>> OK, I then suggest iSCSIProtocolTier
>>
>> I would be OK with iSCSIProtocolLevel as well.
>>
>> Glad to see the consensus, thanks.
>>
>> Mallikarjun
>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: Julian Satran [mailto:julian.satran@gmail.com]
>>> Sent: Friday, March 26, 2010 11:57 PM
>>> To: Black_David@emc.com
>>> Cc: cbm@chadalapaka.com; storm@ietf.org
>>> Subject: Re: [storm] iSCSI SAM update: login key
>>>
>>>  I would suggest gen instead of level (level has too much of a
> value
>>> connotation - at least it my part of the world :-))
>>>
>>> Julo
>>>
>>>
>>> On 27/03/10 08:52, Black_David@emc.com wrote:
>>>> Mallikarjun,
>>>>
>>>> That makes sense (decouple from PDU structure changes), and
> suggests
>> that we
>>> need a key name that doesn't use "PDUFormat" ...
>>>> ... How about iSCSIProtocolLevel ?
>>>>
>>>> It will be necessary to be conservative in defining new values -
> the
>>> requirement to publish a standards track RFC to define a new value
> should
>> help
>>> with that.
>>>>
>>>> Thanks,
>>>> --David
>>>>
>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>> From: Mallikarjun Chadalapaka [mailto:cbm@chadalapaka.com]
>>>>> Sent: Saturday, March 27, 2010 12:28 AM
>>>>> To: Black, David; storm@ietf.org
>>>>> Subject: RE: [storm] iSCSI SAM update: login key
>>>>>
>>>>>> This will be an IETF key whose values are assigned by IETF
> standards
>>> action
>>>>>> (standards-track RFC); it is not linked to SAM versions (e.g., a
> new
>>> version
>>>>>> of SAM is not a prerequisite to assigning the value 3).
>>>>> Decoupling this key from SAM numbering space is a good idea.
>>>>>
>>>>> I also suggest decoupling it from PDU structure changes.  Any new
> iSCSI
>>> standards track RFC, whether
>>>>> or not it extends/changes PDU format, should be able to claim a
> number
>> by
>>> WG consensus.  Reasons for
>>>>> claiming a new number could include things like:
>>>>> 1) New feature introduction (e.g. new Opcodes, new TMF Codes, new
> Async
>>> codes)
>>>>> 2) Major bug fix to the iSCSI protocol that affects end node
> processing
>>>>> 3) Change in semantics to keep up with changing SCSI semantics
>>>>> 4) A PDU Format enhancement
>>>>> 5) TBD reason by WG consensus
>>>>>
>>>>> Reasons 1-3 may not have associated PDU format changes, unlike 4.
> I
>>> suggest these should all be
>>>>> grounds for the WG to consider assigning a number.
>>>>>
>>>>> Doing this allows implementations to negotiate a shared milestone
> at an
>> RFC
>>> granularity (if that RFC
>>>>> has a number), as opposed to feature-by-feature negotiation (e.g.
>>> TaskReporting="FastAbort") with some
>>>>> gray areas that we had to resort to so far.
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks.
>>>>>
>>>>> Mallikarjun
>>>>>
>>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>>> From: storm-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:storm-bounces@ietf.org] On
> Behalf
>> Of
>>>>>> Black_David@emc.com
>>>>>> Sent: Friday, March 26, 2010 11:48 AM
>>>>>> To: storm@ietf.org
>>>>>> Cc: Black_David@emc.com
>>>>>> Subject: [storm] iSCSI SAM update: login key
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Based on discussion in the Anaheim meeting, here's the proposal
> that
>>> emerged
>>>>>> for the login key to negotiate usage of the new features in the
> iSCSI
>> SAM
>>>>>> update draft (draft-ietf-storm-iscsi-sam-00).
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Past concerns (that I can recall) about this have been:
>>>>>> - Key needs to negotiate iSCSI PDU format/content changes only.
>>>>>> - Detecting device support or lack thereof for SCSI features
>>>>>>    should be handled at the SCSI level (e.g., via SCSI
> commands).
>>>>>> - Using a SAM version number in this iSCSI key is not a good
> idea.
>>>>>> - Would like something that can accommodate future changes.
>>>>>> - Changing the key name from what's in the draft may be desired.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The proposal that emerged is:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The key name will be PDUFormatLevel.  It's a numeric (not
> boolean) key
>>> with
>>>>>> two defined values:
>>>>>>    - 1 = Current iSCSI (all four RFCs - 3720, 3980, 4850
> and 5048,
>>>>>>        but no change to required vs. optional
> features).
>>>>>>    - 2 = Current iSCSI plus features in update draft.
>>>>>> Usage is Leading Only (LO), scope is Session Wide (SW).
>>>>>> Default value is 1, result function is Minimum.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This will be an IETF key whose values are assigned by IETF
> standards
>>> action
>>>>>> (standards-track RFC); it is not linked to SAM versions (e.g., a
> new
>>> version
>>>>>> of SAM is not a prerequisite to assigning the value 3).
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This key also provides a clean way to handle definition of iSCSI
>> version
>>>>>> descriptors in SPC-4:
>>>>>> - 0960h would remain "iSCSI (no version claimed)"
>>>>>> - The range 0961h-097Fh would be defined as 0960h + value
>>>>>>    of PDUFormatLevel key used by the device.
>>>>>> That results in one place (IANA registry) covering both
> definitions
>> (key&
>>>>>> version descriptor).
>>>>>>
>>>>>> In order to support iSCSI version descriptors, we would ask IANA
> to
>> put
>>> the
>>>>>> values of the PDUFormatLevel key into a separate registry with
> its own
>>> URL,
>>>>>> and then ask T10 to modify SPC-4.  The latter is not an
> immediate
>> action -
>>> I
>>>>>> would not anticipate bringing the SPC-4 proposal for that to T10
> until
>>> after
>>>>>> the RFC is published and the IANA registry is created.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This was the sense of the room + WebEx in Anaheim.  Absence of
>> objection
>>> on
>>>>>> the list will confirm the above as the approach to be taken
> (rough
>>> consensus
>>>>>> of the storm WG).
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 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
>>
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> storm mailing list
> storm@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/storm