SORT BY:

LIST ORDER
THREAD
AUTHOR
SUBJECT


SEARCH

IPS HOME


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

    iSCSI: Implementation identification keys



    The signal to noise ratio on the X-keys thread is getting rather low,
    hence the deliberate change of subject.
    
    A major problem is that there are two motivations for the proposed
    keys, as Bill Studenmund summarized:
    
    > A) makes it easy to identify vendor/product/rev. All you have to do is
    > capture a session (tcpdump/ethereal), and you have it. Info is in one
    > place.
    > 
    > B) Identify system on other side of connection/session to turn on/off
    > quirk support.
    
    A) is a fine motivation, but B) is problematic, and it appears to be the
    more important one from discussion on the list.  I'm rather uncomfortable
    surrendering to this motivation this early in the game.  This position
    is similar to the reason why we had to stop the practice of incrementing
    the iSCSI version number every time the revision number of the draft
    changed -- I think it's still the case that the right thing to do in the
    IETF process is to aim for interoperability in the standard rather than
    put in support for divergent implementations.
    
    That said, the "quirk support" may be inevitable, and the quirks are
    hard to stamp out once one goes down that path.  For example, EMC's
    support matrix (published on our web site) includes quirk support for
    SCSI and Fibre Channel (and yes, there are a number of parallel SCSI
    quirks, even though parallel SCSI has been around for a very long time).
    
    I think the use of X- keys and shoehorning this into the main iSCSI draft
    at this late stage is inappropriate - IMHO, this should be done right or not
    at all.  I believe the best course of action would be for those interested
    in this sort of feature (and you know who you are from the list discussion)
    to write up a separate draft introducing new keys that we can consider
    separately.  At this juncture, it appears to me that insisting on having
    this in the main iSCSI draft is likely to result in delay - based on
    the list discussion, I think rough consensus is going to be hard to reach
    on this one, hence the desire for a second draft that can take as long as
    it needs.
    
    This gets to the next point I wanted to get to.  IETF process does not
    require rewriting an entire RFC in order to make changes - a new RFC can
    update an existing RFC, and hence it's possible to make small changes
    fairly quickly (without reopening everything in the RFC for changes).
    Of course "fairly quickly" depends on there being rough consensus for
    the changes ... but there's no need to go through resolution of everything
    that anyone might want to change/improve/remove/etc. in the main iSCSI
    document just to make minor changes (e.g., for interoperability problems),
    and iSCSI was designed so that logon negotiation would be extensible.
    
    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: Thu Jun 13 13:18:41 2002
10757 messages in chronological order