RE: iSCSI: Require iSCSI to use packet formats similar to FC, etc ??

[Charles Monia <cmonia@NishanSystems.com>]

Hi:

From an implementation standpoint, I'd much rather see the requirements
document reflect a commitment to freezing the PDU formats.  I don't know if
that's possible. In any event, I don't think the document should provide a
licence to destabilize the PDUs.

Charles
> -----Original Message-----
> From: John Hufferd [mailto:hufferd@us.ibm.com]
> Sent: Friday, April 27, 2001 3:30 PM
> To: KRUEGER,MARJORIE (HP-Roseville,ex1)
> Cc: ips@ece.cmu.edu
> Subject: RE: iSCSI: Require iSCSI to use packet formats similar to FC,
> etc ??
> 
> 
> 
> There are a number of things we have done with iSCSI, such as Multiple
> Connections per Session which are important that do not map to Fibre
> Channel.  (Most of you can also call out things in iSCSI which are
> important to you, and different from FC).  The important 
> thing is to carry
> the semantic of SCSI, and cause as small as state as possible to be
> required in the Gateways.  There are probably a number of folks on the
> reflector that are building Gateways,  the most 
> famous/infamous is CISCO.
> So when Mark said it was not an issue, that other items were lots more
> important, that locked the answer for me.  We are near the 
> end of this PDU
> format journey, and now that the OP Code issue is solve, we 
> should be on
> the tail end of the process.  Changing formats of PDUs should not  be
> acceptable, now, unless something is broken.  So I do not think it is
> important to add requirement words, that could distract us 
> from finishing,
> which have not been needed up to now.
> 
> We have bigger focus items now, like Naming, Discovery, 
> Security, etc. we
> should focus on this items, and not on items which are  non problems.
> 
> .
> .
> .
> John L. Hufferd
> Senior Technical Staff Member (STSM)
> IBM/SSG San Jose Ca
> (408) 256-0403, Tie: 276-0403,  eFax: (408) 904-4688
> Internet address: hufferd@us.ibm.com
> 
> 
> "KRUEGER,MARJORIE (HP-Roseville,ex1)" 
> <marjorie_krueger@hp.com>@ece.cmu.edu
> on 04/27/2001 11:19:23 AM
> 
> Sent by:  owner-ips@ece.cmu.edu
> 
> 
> To:   "'Douglas Otis'" <dotis@sanlight.net>, "Ips Reflector (E-mail)"
>       <ips@ece.cmu.edu>
> cc:
> Subject:  RE: iSCSI: Require iSCSI to use packet formats 
> similar to FC, etc
>       ??
> 
> 
> 
> > As the rules change from technology to technology, there are
> > issues involved
> > in this endeavor that will place into focus some potential
> > problems.  I tend
> > to think that an independent delivery protocol could be
> > developed.
> 
> An independant protocol that is agnostic to the transport medium would
> probably be too general to be optimal in any specific transport
> environment.
> I think the solution is to make SCSI truely independant of 
> the transport
> (strictly layered on top of the transport).  It seems that 
> T10 is realizing
> this and some are working towards that goal.
> 
> IMHO, requiring that iSCSI match other transport formats is 
> going at the
> problem from the wrong end.
> 
> Marj
> 
> 
>