|
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] iSCSI TUF/PDU alignment - Procedural mattersWith my WG Co-Chair hat firmly on, it's time to clear up a few questions about IETF procedures on this topic: > The point about the iSCSI charter is interesting, do others feel that > the segmentation requirements for TUF/PDU Alignment disqualify it from > consideration for iSCSI? If "consideration" means "detailed specification of TUF/PDU alignment in the iSCSI draft", then it is disqualified. A reference to the tsvwg draft on TUF/PDU alignment should be ok, but the strongest possible reference is "MAY", and the proposal below to move all material about iSCSI use of TUF/PDU alignment into a separate draft would be a better approach (hint). > Extending into the realm of complete guesswork, I imagine that even if > iSCSI couldn't reference TUF AT ALL, it would probably be pretty easy > to produce an IRFC (or another XRFC?) that defined the use of TUF with > iSCSI. Certainly writing the draft would be easy, I'm less clear how > it might progress to RFC status. Such a draft would have to use a normative reference to the TUF/PDU Alignment specification, and hence could only become an Experimental RFC. Writing such a draft with that goal in mind would be fine, and would provide a good home for any text keys/values that people want to use to negotiate TUF/PDU alignment for iSCSI. > If we could guarantee that, hardware-accelerated receivers could use a > TCP header option to indicate start-of-frame in this segment, and be > done with it. I'd even to go to bat with the transport-area > representative, arguing that the ratio of iSCSI PDUs to expected drops > is ``small enough'' that using that portion of the limited TCP option > space for non-SACK usage was in fact a good trade-off. That's a TSVWG topic, please take it up there rather than here on the IPS list. Responses to and questions about this email should be sent directly to me, please do not reply to the list. I'll post clarifications if they're important, but these sort of procedural discussions are not a good use of list bandwidth. Thanks, --David --------------------------------------------------- David L. Black, Senior Technologist EMC Corporation, 42 South St., Hopkinton, MA 01748 +1 (508) 249-6449 *NEW* FAX: +1 (508) 497-8500 black_david@emc.com Cell: +1 (978) 394-7754 ---------------------------------------------------
Home Last updated: Fri Jan 11 05:18:01 2002 8361 messages in chronological order |