From dromasca@avaya.com Sun Jan 27 08:53:59 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: storm@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: storm@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 87FDC21F871C; Sun, 27 Jan 2013 08:53:59 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -103.372 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-103.372 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.227, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id BZ6NxyM9Ivp5; Sun, 27 Jan 2013 08:53:58 -0800 (PST) Received: from de307622-de-outbound.net.avaya.com (de307622-de-outbound.net.avaya.com [198.152.71.100]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3FF2C21F86C9; Sun, 27 Jan 2013 08:53:58 -0800 (PST) X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AgAFAP0QA1GHCzI1/2dsb2JhbABFgmu7ZxZzgh4BAQEBAgESKD8FDQEVBw4UQiYBBA4NARmHZwYBC6FYnHSNFINKYQOSWoRPhHGKO4J3gW81 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.84,541,1355115600"; d="scan'208";a="341273251" Received: from unknown (HELO p-us1-erheast.us1.avaya.com) ([135.11.50.53]) by de307622-de-outbound.net.avaya.com with ESMTP; 27 Jan 2013 11:53:50 -0500 Received: from unknown (HELO AZ-FFEXHC04.global.avaya.com) ([135.64.58.14]) by p-us1-erheast-out.us1.avaya.com with ESMTP; 27 Jan 2013 11:53:48 -0500 Received: from AZ-FFEXMB04.global.avaya.com ([fe80::6db7:b0af:8480:c126]) by AZ-FFEXHC04.global.avaya.com ([135.64.58.14]) with mapi id 14.02.0328.009; Sun, 27 Jan 2013 11:54:11 -0500 From: "Romascanu, Dan (Dan)" To: "gen-art@ietf.org" Thread-Topic: Gen-ART Review of draft-ietf-storm-iscsimib-03.txt Thread-Index: Ac38ru1wNGisP6GHRvWY2E+60/tmIw== Date: Sun, 27 Jan 2013 16:54:10 +0000 Message-ID: <9904FB1B0159DA42B0B887B7FA8119CA078657@AZ-FFEXMB04.global.avaya.com> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [135.64.58.46] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailman-Approved-At: Sun, 03 Feb 2013 13:08:45 -0800 Cc: "storm@ietf.org" , "prakashvn@hcl.com" Subject: [storm] Gen-ART Review of draft-ietf-storm-iscsimib-03.txt X-BeenThere: storm@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Storage Maintenance WG List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 27 Jan 2013 16:53:59 -0000 I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. For background on Gen-AR= T, please see the FAQ at < http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/Ge= nArtfaq>. Please wait for direction from your document shepherd or AD before posting = a new version of the draft. Document: draft-ietf-storm-iscsimib-03.txt Reviewer: Dan Romascanu Review Date: 1/27/13 IETF LC End Date: 1/28/13 IESG Telechat date: (if known) Summary: Almost Ready Major issues: 1) This document will obsolete (when approved) RFC 4544, and add support fo= r iSCSI protocol evolution according to the consolidated version of the iSC= SI protocol (as per draft-ietf-storm-iscsi-cons) and for the updates to iSC= SI (as per draft-ietf-storm-iscsi-sam) for ProtocolLevel. There is no indic= ation however in for the operators when an upgrade is recommended or become= s mandatory, and which version of the protocol is to be used during the tra= nsition, function of the iSCSI versions of the protocol. =20 2) A number of changes where agreed by the WG, as reflected in the message = http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/storm/current/msg00652.html, according= to which:=20 > In order to move forward, I suggest that the authors make the functional = changes [1] - [6], not make changes [A] - [F] and [I}, and use their best j= udgment on what (if anything) to do about [G] and [H] My understanding is that the changes [1]-[6] were implemented, and the auth= ors applying their best judgment did not implement [G] and [H]. However, ch= anges [1]-[6] are npt reflected in Section 5.=20 3) I did not perform a MIB Doctor review of the document. I notice however = that the text Security Considerations section and the corresponding referen= ces do not conform to the latest version of the guidelines for the Security= Considerations sections in MIB documents, as per https://svn.tools.ietf.or= g/area/ops/trac/wiki/mib-security# Minor issues: Nits/editorial comments: From dromasca@avaya.com Sun Jan 27 09:04:47 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: storm@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: storm@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 387FC21F84E9; Sun, 27 Jan 2013 09:04:47 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -103.391 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-103.391 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.208, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id M6zIkIYhl9sa; Sun, 27 Jan 2013 09:04:46 -0800 (PST) Received: from co300216-co-outbound.net.avaya.com (co300216-co-outbound.net.avaya.com [198.152.13.100]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6A7E821F8484; Sun, 27 Jan 2013 09:04:46 -0800 (PST) X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AgAFAJoQA1GHCzI1/2dsb2JhbABFgmu7ZxZzgh4BAQEBAgESKD8FDQEVBw4UQiYBBA4NARmHZwYBC6FYnHSNFINKYQOSWoRPhHGKO4J3gW81 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.84,541,1355115600"; d="scan'208";a="386218418" Received: from unknown (HELO p-us1-erheast.us1.avaya.com) ([135.11.50.53]) by co300216-co-outbound.net.avaya.com with ESMTP; 27 Jan 2013 12:04:28 -0500 Received: from unknown (HELO AZ-FFEXHC01.global.avaya.com) ([135.64.58.11]) by p-us1-erheast-out.us1.avaya.com with ESMTP; 27 Jan 2013 12:04:38 -0500 Received: from AZ-FFEXMB04.global.avaya.com ([fe80::6db7:b0af:8480:c126]) by AZ-FFEXHC01.global.avaya.com ([135.64.58.11]) with mapi id 14.02.0328.009; Sun, 27 Jan 2013 12:05:01 -0500 From: "Romascanu, Dan (Dan)" To: "gen-art@ietf.org" Thread-Topic: Gen-ART Review of draft-ietf-storm-iscsimib-03.txt Thread-Index: Ac38ru1wNGisP6GHRvWY2E+60/tmIw== Date: Sun, 27 Jan 2013 17:05:00 +0000 Message-ID: <9904FB1B0159DA42B0B887B7FA8119CA07867E@AZ-FFEXMB04.global.avaya.com> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [135.64.58.46] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailman-Approved-At: Sun, 03 Feb 2013 13:08:45 -0800 Cc: "prakashvn@hcl.com" , "storm@ietf.org" Subject: [storm] Gen-ART Review of draft-ietf-storm-iscsimib-03.txt X-BeenThere: storm@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Storage Maintenance WG List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 27 Jan 2013 17:04:47 -0000 (I missed one of the authors at the first send) I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. For background on Gen-AR= T, please see the FAQ at < http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/Ge= nArtfaq>. Please wait for direction from your document shepherd or AD before posting = a new version of the draft. Document: draft-ietf-storm-iscsimib-03.txt Reviewer: Dan Romascanu Review Date: 1/27/13 IETF LC End Date: 1/28/13 IESG Telechat date: (if known) Summary: Almost Ready Major issues: 1) This document will obsolete (when approved) RFC 4544, and add support fo= r iSCSI protocol evolution according to the consolidated version of the iSC= SI protocol (as per draft-ietf-storm-iscsi-cons) and for the updates to iSC= SI (as per draft-ietf-storm-iscsi-sam) for ProtocolLevel. There is no indic= ation however in for the operators when an upgrade is recommended or become= s mandatory, and which version of the protocol is to be used during the tra= nsition, function of the iSCSI versions of the protocol. =20 2) A number of changes where agreed by the WG, as reflected in the message = http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/storm/current/msg00652.html, according= to which:=20 > In order to move forward, I suggest that the authors make the functional = changes [1] - [6], not make changes [A] - [F] and [I}, and use their best j= udgment on what (if anything) to do about [G] and [H] My understanding is that the changes [1]-[6] were implemented, and the auth= ors applying their best judgment did not implement [G] and [H]. However, ch= anges [1]-[6] are npt reflected in Section 5.=20 3) I did not perform a MIB Doctor review of the document. I notice however = that the text Security Considerations section and the corresponding referen= ces do not conform to the latest version of the guidelines for the Security= Considerations sections in MIB documents, as per https://svn.tools.ietf.or= g/area/ops/trac/wiki/mib-security# Minor issues: Nits/editorial comments: