RE: multiple connections

[julian_satran@il.ibm.com]

David,

Thanks for your prompt answer.  However I will try to summarize the views
as I heard them
only to keep tab on where we stand at the point the discussion was
interrupted and state
the (rather long) line of thought that makes us all feel that the design
should include
multiple connections from the outset. We can then stop discussing it for a
while.
I feel also that the community had no chance to see a draft including an
asymmetric
multiple connection model and it might be a worthwhile exercise to present
one as an (optional text) with the next draft.  I would like also - only to
be fair - to point out -
as others have done before - that by removing the command counters and the
sliding
window you have, for all practical purposes, closed the door to the
symmetric multiple connection version.

Julo

Black_David@emc.com on 25/09/2000 17:47:19

Please respond to Black_David@emc.com

To:   Julian Satran/Haifa/IBM@IBMIL, ips@ece.cmu.edu
cc:
Subject:  RE: multiple connections




Julian,

I have to ask you not to do that.  There is consensus
in the WG that multiple connection sessions are an
important feature that needs to be specified, but
should be optional to implement.  There is NOT consensus
on what the right design approach is.  I have off-line
email from proponents of both the Asymmetric and Symmetric
multi-connection session models expressing dismay
at the separation of them from the main specification
and arguing that their preferred approach is the right
one.  These reinforce my observations that there is
no consensus on the issue, and that the mailing list
discussion is unlikely to achieve consensus.  As I
stated in earlier email, the requirement for
multiple connection sessions has not been removed,
but spending the next 6-8 weeks discussing it on the
mailing list does not appear likely to achieve consensus.
We need to try something else, namely an off-line
design team.  In the near term, list bandwidth is
better used to make progress on issues where
progress is still possible, such as flow control.

Thanks,
--David

---------------------------------------------------
David L. Black, Senior Technologist
EMC Corporation, 42 South St., Hopkinton, MA  01748
+1 (508) 435-1000 x75140     FAX: +1 (508) 497-8500
black_david@emc.com       Mobile: +1 (978) 394-7754
---------------------------------------------------


> -----Original Message-----
> From:   julian_satran@il.ibm.com [SMTP:julian_satran@il.ibm.com]
> Sent:   Monday, September 25, 2000 3:32 AM
> To:     ips@ece.cmu.edu
> Subject:     multiple connections
>
>
>
> Dear colleagues,
>
> I was out on a week vacation and was a bit surprised by the turn of
> events.
> I will try to summarize today why the whole design team, and many more,
> thought that multiple connections are a central feature to iSCSI and why
> removing it will harm the effort.
> I thought that we have a rough consensus on this and what we are not
fully
> confident about is if to go for an asymmetric scheme (with separate
> control
> and data connections) or a symmetric scheme.
>
> Julo
>