RE: iSCSI: DLB's [T.6] 2.3 iSCSI Session Types

["Julian Satran" <Julian_Satran@il.ibm.com>]

You have a good point and it was made before but it was the compromise
reached after a long debate
and I am still opposed to embedded discovery but I can accept it as a
lesser evil if the session is short.

I can agree with MUST but I will resist adding any notification.

It is just the wrong thing to do.

Julo



                                                                                                                                            
                      Black_David@emc.c                                                                                                     
                      om                       To:       Julian Satran/Haifa/IBM@IBMIL                                                      
                      Sent by:                 cc:       ips@ece.cmu.edu                                                                    
                      owner-ips@ece.cmu        Subject:  RE: iSCSI: DLB's [T.6] 2.3  iSCSI Session Types                                    
                      .edu                                                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                            
                                                                                                                                            
                      07/09/2002 09:38                                                                                                      
                      AM                                                                                                                    
                      Please respond to                                                                                                     
                      Black_David                                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                            
                                                                                                                                            



Julian,

Your "at its own risk" is an invitation to interoperability problems -
if Discovery sessions are meant to be fixed functionality, then an
Initiator that attempts to exceed that functionality needs to get
told NO - otherwise we're going to see READ commands on Discovery
sessions to get additional configuration information, and then
task management, and ... this neat stuff will only work right
when the same implementation is on both ends of the connection.

I have a separate reply to Ayman's message coming that contains
an attempt at requirements text, but it's longer than I would like.

Thanks,
--David

 -----Original Message-----
 From: Julian Satran [mailto:Julian_Satran@il.ibm.com]
 Sent: Tuesday, July 09, 2002 1:40 AM
 To: Black_David@emc.com
 Cc: aghanem@cisco.com; ips@ece.cmu.edu; owner-ips@ece.cmu.edu
 Subject: RE: iSCSI: DLB's [T.6] 2.3 iSCSI Session Types


 David,

 The original MAY was perfectly appropriate and so is the MUST.
 If you say that you have targets that MAY not support anything else than
 .. the an initiator attempting to use anything else
 would do it at its own risk.
 Your preference for MUST puts an additional mandatory burden to targets to
 CHECK (all targets) that nothing else
 is sent.

 It is strict where none of us thought that we have to be.

 From an initiator POW they are equivalent.
 For a target it requires more work.

 I would favor the way we where ... but that may be all age related.

 Julo


                                                                           
    Black_David@emc.com                                                    
    Sent by:                        To:        aghanem@cisco.com,          
    owner-ips@ece.cmu.edu   ips@ece.cmu.edu                                
                                    cc:                                    
                                    Subject:        RE: iSCSI: DLB's [T.6] 
    07/08/2002 05:18 PM     2.3  iSCSI Session Types                       
    Please respond to                                                      
    Black_David                                                            
                                                                           




 Ayman,

 Something needs to be cleaned up here, as the current text appears
 to allow all types of iSCSI PDUs on a discovery session.  I didn't
 intend to restrict a discovery session to one Send Targets followed
 by a logout (i.e., it could be kept open with the initiator periodically
 sending a new Send Targets to see if anything has changed), but I
 did intend to forbid SCSI commands, task management, etc. on Discovery
 sessions.  Is that reasonable, or are there additional types of iSCSI
 PDUs that you want to see allowed for new device notifications?

 Thanks,
 --David

 > -----Original Message-----
 > From: Ayman Ghanem [mailto:aghanem@cisco.com]
 > Sent: Sunday, July 07, 2002 12:41 PM
 > To: ips@ece.cmu.edu
 > Subject: RE: iSCSI: DLB's [T.6] 2.3 iSCSI Session Types
 >
 >
 > I prefer leaving this as "MAY" for implementations that want
 > to support new
 > device notifications. There was a discussion on whether
 > discovery sessions
 > should be long-lived or not. Using MAY allows both without
 > breaking any
 > thing.
 >
 > -Ayman
 >
 > > [T.6] 2.3  iSCSI Session Types
 > >
 > >       b)  Discovery-session - a session opened only for
 > target discov-
 > >       ery; the target MAY accept only text requests with
 > the SendTar-
 > >       gets key and a logout request with reason "close the session".
 > >
 > > Change "MAY" to "MUST", and say that other requests MUST be
 > rejected.
 > >
 >