Re: iSCSI: Questions regarding iSCSI LUN Access Controls

[Nick Bellinger <nickb@attheoffice.org>]

Jim,

	Thanks for the quick reply.  In regard to the prementioned "paragraph
or two"  I was implying that a clear pointer should be added to the
appropiate documents, and not looking to add a simple explanation of the
myrid of possible complex implemetation details. It just seems odd that
such an important topic as ACLs have a very brief mention iSCSI. 
Granted these are hardly a topic that should be discussed with an SCSI
transport,  but nevertheless I still think a clearer
definition/reference is warrented.

Thanks again!
			Nicholas Bellinger    


On Thu, 2002-06-27 at 15:26, Jim Hafner wrote:
> 
> Nick,
> 
> The "clearer definition/reference" is now SPC-3 (the latest version).  This
> has incorporated the final approved proposal(s) for SCSI Access Controls.
> This went through 6 more revisions as T10/99-245r? but also as 2 or 3 other
> revisions under a new number (which I don' t recall at the moment -- but
> it's all in SPC-3 as the official version).
> 
> If there is a reference to that older document in the draft, it should be
> removed and replaced with the SPC-3 reference.
> 
> Implementing LU ACLs in iSCSI is not a "short paragraph or two" in terms of
> the possible mechanisms for doing it -- that is, there are many ways to do
> it, and not all use the SCSI defined model. I don't think it would be
> productive to open up this discussion.
> 
> Jim Hafner
> 
> 
> Nick Bellinger <nickb@attheoffice.org>@ece.cmu.edu on 06/27/2002 01:08:47
> PM
> 
> Sent by:    owner-ips@ece.cmu.edu
> 
> 
> To:    ips@ece.cmu.edu
> cc:
> Subject:    iSCSI: Questions regarding iSCSI LUN Access Controls
> 
> 
> 
> Greetings
> 
>  After a quick scan of v14,  I can only find a handful of references to
> access controls mainly in regard to the use of the TARGET WARM/COLD
> RESET Task Management functions.  Knowing that ACLs on the iSCSI LUNS
> themselves are largely a implemenation dependant feature,  perhaps it
> would be to the readers advantage to include a paragraph or two on an
> basic explanation than simply including a reference to the document
> "99-245r3 A detailed proposal for access controls for SPC-2"?
> Knowing that this could be a bit too late of a request where things
> currently stand,  I still believe a clearer definition/reference is
> warrented.
> 
>  Comments?
>    Nicholas Bellinger
> 
> 
> 
> 
>