SORT BY:

LIST ORDER
THREAD
AUTHOR
SUBJECT


SEARCH

IPS HOME


    [Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

    Re: comments on naming&discovery draft



    Sandeep-
    
    The problem you pointed out in item number 1 creates the need
    for an additional iSCSI-level event.  Since the discovery of
    targets happens at the iSCSI level, rather than at the SCSI
    level, how about adding this to 2.18.1 (in iSCSI-05)?
    
      4   Network entity indicates that a "target discovery" event
          has occurred.
    
    Upon receiving this message, the initiator should use SendTargets,
    or whatever other methods of discovery it is using, to find out
    what has changed.  Usually, this would be due to adding a new
    target.
    
    We will fix items 2-4; thanks for pointing them out.
    
    Thanks,
    
    Mark
    
    Sandeep Joshi wrote:
    > 
    > 1) Section 4.2 last line before Section 4.2.1
    >     "target MUST send any iSCSI-level async on this session,
    >      allowing the initiator to discover new targets.."
    > 
    >    The session mentioned here is a session to the canonical target.
    > 
    >    However, the iSCSI 05 draft does not mention any such condition
    >    in Sec 2.18 on Async Message.   In there, a SCSI event (note: not
    >    iSCSI) is used to notify availability of new targets.
    > 
    > 2) Appendix C, Section 5 "Stateful Inspection Firewall"
    >    It contains statements of the sort "I dont expect/think.."
    >    These statements could be rephrased to be impersonal.
    
    I will fix these.
    
    > 3) Section 4.3 Middle of page 17 (After reference to RFC 2608)
    >    -> "A target can register either its canonical target, ..."
    > 
    >    Multiple references to term "target" is confusing.  It can be
    >    changed to refer to the term "Network entity" introduced earlier
    >    in the document.
    >    -> "A network entity can register its canonical target,.."
    
    I will fix this as well.
    
    > 4) Sec 4.2 SendTargets Command
    >    The status code 0x42 mentioned is now 0x02 in iSCSI document.
    >    A similar mismatch exists in some codes listed in B.4.5.
    > 
    >    It might help to just use error names and not numbers to avoid
    >    this problem.  [readers can do error code "discovery"! ]
    
    Good idea; we will fix this, too.
    
    > -Sandeep
    
    -- 
    Mark A. Bakke
    Cisco Systems
    mbakke@cisco.com
    763.398.1054
    


Home

Last updated: Tue Sep 04 01:05:22 2001
6315 messages in chronological order