SORT BY:

LIST ORDER
THREAD
AUTHOR
SUBJECT


SEARCH

IPS HOME


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

    Re: iSCSI: Markers



    Of the five options mentioned should I say, the option 2 is the right 
    kind of thing which provides the necessary flexibility and may be a 
    easier way to implement or to adopt whenever needed.
    ANY COMMENTS??
    
    Aryan
    
    
    John Hufferd wrote:
    
    > OK, Folks, I have now talked to Steph, who authored  TUF, which is
    > currently on the road to Experimental Status,  He has authored another
    > version of TUF also, which uses a form of COWS.  So that means that we have
    > two different versions of TUF as well as 2 versions of COWS (which are
    > independent of Framing), and then there is FIM.  So let me list them and be
    > sure we name them so that we are not in the middle of more confusion.
    > 
    > 1. Fixed Interval Markers (FIM) Currently In the iSCSI Draft
    > 2. Constant Overhead Word Stuffing (COWS) as drafted by Julian and sent in
    > his note of 12/23/2001 Subject "iSCSI - Synch an Steering Appendix -
    > Markers & COWS"
    > 3. TCP Upper-layer-protocol Framing (TUF) as drafted by Stephen Bailey in
    > http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-tsvwg-tcp-ulp-frame-01.txt
    > 4. COWS Drafted By Stephen Bailey which can be used in both in stream and
    > with Framing in
    > http://www.cs.uchicago.edu/~steph/draft-bailey-tsvwg-cows-00.txt
    > 
    > Now lets call Julian's proposal COWS with 2 way pointers (COWS2WP)
    > Now lets call Steph's COWS with 1 way pointers (COWS1WP)
    > 
    > When the type of COWS does not matter we can just call them COWS.
    > 
    > Both COWS can be used in Framing.  But to keep this discussion somewhat
    > simpler lets call the Framing without any COWS as "Bare Framing", and Both
    > of the other as "COWS Framing".  Only when we need to talk about which type
    > of COWS should we say "COWS2WP Framing" or "COWS1WP Framing".  But for most
    > conversation it should be just "COWS Framing".
    > 
    > So we have FIM, COWS1WP, COWS2WP, Bare Framing, & COWS Framing (made up of
    > COWS1WP Framing and COWS2WP Framing).
    > 
    > Now we also need to understand that one of the main reasons expressed to
    > make Framing go experimental, instead of Standards Track was that folks
    > were worried that Bare Framing was based on probability, and that there was
    > a very remote possibility that something could be done incorrectly.
    > 
    > As a result of that Steph was considering, as part of the experimental
    > work, seeing what the impact of his previous COWS Draft would be on the
    > experimental work that was going to be done.  He had no intention of
    > bringing it up now, since he felt work/thought was still needed.
    > 
    > As you know COWS came up anyhow (and in a different form).
    > 
    > So what we have are statements from folks like me that had read Julian's
    > Draft and the ietf-tsvwg version of Framing (Bare Framing), which did not
    > see in those drafts the overlap.  Clearly there is an overlap in the minds
    > of Julian for COWS2WP and Steph for COWS1WP and how they might impact
    > Framing.
    > 
    > NET of Bare Framing vs COWS Framing:
    > Bare Framing is based on probability and does not have to inspect each Word
    > (SW or HW) COW requires Touching each Word,
    > COWS Framing is guaranteed to always be correct.
    > 
    > So the choices are:
    > 1. FIM now, and Bare Framing later
    > 2. FIM now, and COWS Framing later
    > 3. COWS now, and Bare Framing later
    > 4. COWS now, and COWS Framing Later
    > 5. Nothing now, and some kind of Framing Later
    > 
    > If we chose to do any of the "COWS now" options we would need to hold the
    > debate on which form, but we should assume that which ever COWS we chose
    > now is the COWS for later.
    > 
    > Value Statements
    > 1. FIM and Bare Framing: Means we never have the overhead of touching every
    > word
    > 2. FIM and COWS Framing: Means that touching is postponed until Framing,
    > and perhaps Faster Desktops/Laptops or support even support in normal NICs.
    > 3.  COWS now and Bare Framing later: Has issues of toughing everything now,
    > and then not useful later
    > 4. COWS now and COWS Framing Later: Means always touch, but current
    > approach is extensible into Framing
    > 5.Nothing now, and some kind of Framing later: Means No current help, and
    > no guarantee of help in the future, but some reasonable probability that
    > some form of Framing will happen.
    > 
    > So it is 1-5 upon which  we should be taking a position.
    > .
    > .
    > .
    > John L. Hufferd
    > Senior Technical Staff Member (STSM)
    > IBM/SSG San Jose Ca
    > Main Office (408) 256-0403, Tie: 276-0403,  eFax: (408) 904-4688
    > Home Office (408) 997-6136, Cell: (408) 499-9702
    > Internet address: hufferd@us.ibm.com
    > 
    > 
    
    
    


Home

Last updated: Fri Jan 11 10:17:52 2002
8362 messages in chronological order