Re: iSCSI: multiple connection process

["Randall R. Stewart" <randall@stewart.chicago.il.us>]

Julain:

I have not been involved in any of the offline emails
that I am aware of and I don't see a consenses on the
list. I think David is just trying to move us
forward and I support this. I don't see that he is
saying remove it completly.. just lets get something
finished and then open this up in another draft...

I think it is a good way to move forward...

R


julian_satran@il.ibm.com wrote:
> 
> David,
> 
> Only for correctness - the SAME design team has discussed both the
> symmetric and
> asymmetric model and choose the symmetric because it did not have a good
> enough
> asymmetric solution;  that does not hold now anymore and that is why I
> opened
> this thread (should I say I am sorry?)
> 
> I have two objections to the direction you have taken:
> 
> - you considered objections that where voiced to you and not to the mailing
> list;
>    the community should judge if they are core or marginal; I would
> appreciate if
>    you could summarize them
> 
> - the key issues with any of the two approaches are understood - an
> evaluation
>    committee will only broaden the "discontent"
> 
> Julo
> 
> Black_David@emc.com on 25/09/2000 23:51:48
> 
> Please respond to Black_David@emc.com
> 
> To:   matt_wakeley@agilent.com, Black_David@emc.com, ips@ece.cmu.edu
> cc:    (bcc: Julian Satran/Haifa/IBM)
> Subject:  iSCSI: multiple connection process
> 
> > Exactly.  There has been NO consensus that multi-connection sessions
> should be
> > removed from the main specification (only your proposal to do that).
> Just
> > because we can't (yet) agree on something, does not mean "let's not do it
> at
> > all, or put it off until later."
> 
> Sorry, lack of rough consensus means one of those two.  Documents don't
> leave the WG without rough consensus, so either the document gets delayed
> for consensus, or the feature gets removed.  Needless to say, we don't have
> rough consensus at the moment, nor do I see much in the way of common
> ground emerging among the different points of view.
> 
> > We already had the offline design team and we came up with something that
> > everyone is arguing about.  So let's have some more discussion on what it
> is
> > that people don't like, and what the requirements are, so that another
> offline
> > design team has something to work with.
> 
> Actually, offline design teams came up with both the Asymmetric and
> Symmetric
> models ... and now there's a third.  It appears to me that continued list
> discussion is
> an active version of "put it off until later" rather than a passive one.  I
> could be
> wrong, but someone will need to explain what will be different about
> continued list
> discussion that will lead to a consensus in a way that discussion since
> Pittsburgh
> has not.
> 
> The alternative process I have in mind is more of an evaluation team than a
> design
> team - form a team of people who publish evaluation criteria for
> multiple-connection
> sessions, evaluate drafts describing the various models against those
> criteria,
> and make a recommendation to the WG.  One possible way to make continued
> progress on the list is to discuss what those evaluation criteria ought to
> be
> rather than asking an off-line team to write them.  Doing this really
> requires someone
> to track the criteria as they evolve - a volunteer for this task is hereby
> solicited,
> preferably someone who has not taken a position on this session issue.
> 
> Thanks,
> --David
> 
> ---------------------------------------------------
> David L. Black, Senior Technologist
> EMC Corporation, 42 South St., Hopkinton, MA  01748
> +1 (508) 435-1000 x75140     FAX: +1 (508) 497-8500
> black_david@emc.com       Mobile: +1 (978) 394-7754
> ---------------------------------------------------

-- 
Randall R. Stewart
randall@stewart.chicago.il.us or rrs@cisco.com
815-342-5222 (cell) 815-477-2127 (work)