RE: iSCSI: Wrapping up SendTargets

["Jim Hafner" <hafner@almaden.ibm.com>]

Folks,

Marj asks:  How do you distinguish the two cases (of reporting on stuff in
the same box and stuff in other boxes)?

I'd add: how do you test compliance?

I think the standard should define the protocol, describe what it is
intended to be used for (report about targets "in the same box"), and, if
necessary, add SHOULD NOTs to discourage use as a more general
environment-wide discovery mechanism.

Jim Hafner


"KRUEGER,MARJORIE (HP-Roseville,ex1)" <marjorie_krueger@hp.com>@ece.cmu.edu
on 06/27/2001 10:18:53 am

Sent by:  owner-ips@ece.cmu.edu


To:   "Ips Reflector (E-mail)" <ips@ece.cmu.edu>
cc:
Subject:  RE: iSCSI: Wrapping up SendTargets



Sorry if this is a repost, I sent this message Monday and didn't see it
posted:

> -----Original Message-----
> From: KRUEGER,MARJORIE (HP-Roseville,ex1)
> Sent: Monday, June 25, 2001 5:53 PM
> To: 'Black_David@emc.com'; KRUEGER,MARJORIE (HP-Roseville,ex1)
> Cc: ips@ece.cmu.edu
> Subject: RE: iSCSI: Wrapping up SendTargets
>
>
> > So, let me acknowledge Marj's position that use of SendTargets
> > to describe other systems should be allowed, and solicit
> > other comments on this issue.  In particular, I'd like to
> > hear from those who want to make sure that SendTargets
> > will be able to be retired in the future.
>
> Well actually, my position is that SendTargets responses
> should be allowed to include everything that you know about
> your own implementation, which may include other TCP/IP
> addresses (aggregation tags included), and other target names
> that your implementation exports.
>
> If you allow this behavior, how do you preclude "targets
> reporting information about other targets"?  How do you
> distinguish the two cases?
>
> Marjorie Krueger
> Networked Storage Architecture
> Networked Storage Solutions Org.
> Hewlett-Packard
> tel: +1 916 785 2656
> fax: +1 916 785 0391
> email: marjorie_krueger@hp.com
>