>>>>> "Black" == Black David <Black_David@xxxxxxx> writes: Black> Here's another piece of "housekeeping" for the new STORM Black> WG-to-be - I've been informed by a knowledgeable T10 Black> participant that: >> T10 proposal 05-406 (from Bill Galloway, Pivot3) added 3 >> iSCSI-specific unit attention condition additional sense codes in >> SPC-4: - 3Fh/12h iSCSI IP ADDRESS ADDED - 3Fh/13h iSCSI IP ADDRESS >> REMOVED - 3Fh/14h iSCSI IP ADDRESS CHANGED >> >> r0 used a more generic "DEVICE PORT ADDRESS" phrase, but r1 >> changed that to "iSCSI IP ADDRESS" upon recommendation by the >> [T10] CAP WG. >> >> However, there is no mention in any standard of when these are >> used (unlike all the other unit attention conditions, whose causes >> are clearly defined). With the accepted names, that belongs in >> iSCSI itself. Black> FWIW, these ASC/Q value pairs appear to have been added to Black> SPC-4 without any cross-checking with the IETF, which would Black> serve to explain why there is no documentation anywhere about Black> when or how to use them. Since these ASC/Qs are Black> iSCSI-specific, that task falls to the iSCSI specification(s), Black> unless these ASC/Qs are removed or have their names changed to Black> no longer be iSCSI-specific. Black> Hence: - the "new features" STORM draft should explain how to Black> use these ASC/Qs --- AND/OR --- - discussion here and in the Black> to-be-formed storm WG should generate a proposal to T10 about Black> what should change and why. I would suggest the following. 1. The person advocating these ASC/Q codes should propose a new work item for STORM to add this new feature. It first needs to be added to the charter, then a new I-D needs to be generated to describe it. It doesn't belong in the other work items because it's neither cleanup nor (as far as I can tell) SAM-4 support. 2. If #1 isn't done or the proposal doesn't receive WG consensus, STORM should generate a liaison request to T10 asking for these ASC/Q codes to be removed, or deprecated, or otherwise relabeled to make it clear that they are not defined by the iSCSI standard. paul _______________________________________________ Ips mailing list Ips@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ips