RE: iSCSI - open issues - no discussion - recovery levels

["Rod Harrison" <rod.harrison@windriver.com>]

	With respect to framing I would be firmly against replacing
markers with something that would require changes to the
network stack. I think it is clear that there will almost
certainly be software iSCSI implementations at workstations,
and that those workstations will need to provide framing /
markers for hardware at the server that require them. Having
come this far I think it would be a change for the worse
were we to prevent software implementations that allow a
hardware implementation to perform at its best. I favour
MUST provide markers, and have no objection to a reference
to an external framing draft as an option.

	With respect to recovery I agree that the all or nothing
approach (2 layers) is a good choice..

	- Rod

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-ips@ece.cmu.edu [mailto:owner-ips@ece.cmu.edu]On
Behalf Of
Julian Satran
Sent: Sunday, August 26, 2001 2:07 PM
To: ips@ece.cmu.edu
Subject: iSCSI - open issues - no discussion - recovery
levels


Dear colleagues,

Considering that the next plugfest is getting close and we
would like to
have
version 08 ready for it.

We have two open items that got little attention on the list
up to now:

- taking out the markers and inserting a reference to an
external framing
draft (what is mandatory, what is optional etc.)
- recovery the recovery levels proposal

The status  with both is as follows:

- on the framing there is consensus that it is a good idea;
there is no
consensus on what is  MUST, SHOULD etc.
- on the recovery there is consesus that it is a good idea;
there is no
consensus on how many layers to enforce (I think that 2 -
all or nothing is
a good choice).

Regards,
Julo