IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [storm] Removing iSCSI Markers?

<Black_David@emc.com> Fri, 21 May 2010 22:48 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 D66313A6B63 for <storm@core3.amsl.com>; Fri, 21 May 2010 15:48:53 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.499
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.499 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.500, 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 RL8L7qkj6s+c for <storm@core3.amsl.com>; Fri, 21 May 2010 15:48:53 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mexforward.lss.emc.com (mexforward.lss.emc.com [128.222.32.20]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8FE5D3A6942 for <storm@ietf.org>; Fri, 21 May 2010 15:48:43 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from hop04-l1d11-si02.isus.emc.com (HOP04-L1D11-SI02.isus.emc.com [10.254.111.55]) by mexforward.lss.emc.com (Switch-3.3.2/Switch-3.1.7) with ESMTP id o4LMmZuF024776 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Fri, 21 May 2010 18:48:35 -0400
Received: from mailhub.lss.emc.com (numailhub.lss.emc.com [10.254.144.16]) by hop04-l1d11-si02.isus.emc.com (RSA Interceptor); Fri, 21 May 2010 18:48:24 -0400
Received: from corpussmtp4.corp.emc.com (corpussmtp4.corp.emc.com [10.254.169.197]) by mailhub.lss.emc.com (Switch-3.4.2/Switch-3.3.2mp) with ESMTP id o4LMmNT5011146; Fri, 21 May 2010 18:48:24 -0400
Received: from CORPUSMX80B.corp.emc.com ([10.254.89.201]) by corpussmtp4.corp.emc.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959); Fri, 21 May 2010 18:48:23 -0400
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5
Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Date: Fri, 21 May 2010 18:48:22 -0400
Message-ID: <C2D311A6F086424F99E385949ECFEBCB02A28E1C@CORPUSMX80B.corp.emc.com>
In-Reply-To: <SNT131-ds15137672BC9770D25CF313A0120@phx.gbl>
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
Thread-Topic: [storm] Removing iSCSI Markers?
thread-index: AcrQJThGDTzNBBj3QkmOgIeCm47ZrQAANX9gAlhwygAAQjdzgAepl7Ig
References: <C2D311A6F086424F99E385949ECFEBCB02162B4B@CORPUSMX80B.corp.emc.com> <690958.35528.qm@smtp111.biz.mail.re2.yahoo.com> <SNT131-ds389E5D120CA34D81D341FA01F0@phx.gbl> <D8CEBB6AE9D43848BD2220619A43F326539198@M31.equallogic.com> <SNT129-W39116021288D2177842E5DE61F0@phx.gbl> <D8CEBB6AE9D43848BD2220619A43F3265391BE@M31.equallogic.com> <288331.47396.qm@smtp113.biz.mail.re2.yahoo.com> <SNT129-W518EAD0118AE20545198F3E61F0@phx.gbl><719511.28420.qm@smtp115.biz.mail.re2.yahoo.com><SNT131-ds195C4D77D99D90330C71A6A01F0@phx.gbl><0bf201cad989$e40ee9d0$0600a8c0@china.huawei.com> <SNT131-ds15137672BC9770D25CF313A0120@phx.gbl>
From: Black_David@emc.com
To: cbm@chadalapaka.com, storm@ietf.org
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 21 May 2010 22:48:23.0575 (UTC) FILETIME=[B7CE5270:01CAF937]
X-EMM-EM: Active
Subject: Re: [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: Fri, 21 May 2010 22:48:54 -0000

> So I believe the WG is in agreement on removing iSCSI Markers.  Once
> David is back from vacation on the 19th, I assume he will make the formal
> consensus call, unless someone reports news of existing interoperable
> implementations in the interim.

I am back, but this has taken longer than I would have liked - it's a long story that starts with an unruly volcano in Iceland ;-).

In any case, I believe that I see WG rough consensus in the list discussion for removal of iSCSI Markers from the consolidated iSCSI draft (draft-ietf-storm-iscsi-cons).

Anyone who believes that iSCSI Markers should not be removed should explain why on the list.


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

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email