|
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] Re: iSCSI: MarkersOf 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 |