From internet-drafts@ietf.org Tue Apr 2 09:32:47 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 C057C21F8DAC; Tue, 2 Apr 2013 09:32:47 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.515 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.515 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.085, BAYES_00=-2.599, NO_RELAYS=-0.001, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ftzU3ZPtW385; Tue, 2 Apr 2013 09:32:47 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 66E9E21F8CD8; Tue, 2 Apr 2013 09:32:47 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable From: internet-drafts@ietf.org To: i-d-announce@ietf.org X-Test-IDTracker: no X-IETF-IDTracker: 4.43 Message-ID: <20130402163247.25118.47659.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Tue, 02 Apr 2013 09:32:47 -0700 Cc: storm@ietf.org Subject: [storm] I-D Action: draft-ietf-storm-iscsimib-04.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: Tue, 02 Apr 2013 16:32:47 -0000 A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts director= ies. This draft is a work item of the STORage Maintenance Working Group of the = IETF. Title : Definitions of Managed Objects for Internet Small Comput= er System Interface (iSCSI) Author(s) : Mark Bakke Prakash Venkatesen Filename : draft-ietf-storm-iscsimib-04.txt Pages : 90 Date : 2013-04-02 Abstract: This document defines a portion of the Management Information Base (MIB) for use with network management protocols. In particular, it defines objects for managing a client using the Internet Small Computer System Interface (iSCSI) protocol (SCSI over TCP). This document obsoletes RFC4544. The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-storm-iscsimib There's also a htmlized version available at: http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-storm-iscsimib-04 A diff from the previous version is available at: http://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=3Ddraft-ietf-storm-iscsimib-04 Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at: ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/ From prakashvn@hcl.com Tue Apr 2 09:45:37 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 4BF0721F8CD2 for ; Tue, 2 Apr 2013 09:45:37 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Abke6Og7S-Kw for ; Tue, 2 Apr 2013 09:45:36 -0700 (PDT) Received: from GWS08.hcl.com (gws08.hcl.com [192.8.186.131]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 26D2121F8C78 for ; Tue, 2 Apr 2013 09:45:34 -0700 (PDT) X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.87,394,1363113000"; d="scan'208";a="10089647" Received: from unknown (HELO CHN-CORP-HT02.CORP.HCL.IN) ([10.249.2.34]) by GWS08.hcl.com with ESMTP/TLS/AES128-SHA; 02 Apr 2013 22:17:16 +0530 Received: from CHN-HCLT-CASHT1.HCLT.CORP.HCL.IN (10.108.45.33) by CHN-CORP-HT02.CORP.HCL.IN (10.249.2.34) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.2.247.3; Tue, 2 Apr 2013 22:14:55 +0530 Received: from CHN-HCLT-EVS16.HCLT.CORP.HCL.IN ([10.108.45.98]) by CHN-HCLT-CASHT1.HCLT.CORP.HCL.IN ([::1]) with mapi; Tue, 2 Apr 2013 22:14:55 +0530 From: "Prakash Venkatesen, ERS-HCLTech" To: Mark Bakke , "Black, David" , "storm@ietf.org" Date: Tue, 2 Apr 2013 22:14:55 +0530 Thread-Topic: iSCSI MIB changes - compliance requirements Q Thread-Index: Ac4ZMsAUVUwWjwR8TK2GbrnoN7zwWgCNPa7wA5DTKgAAKFTRAAFc7xLJ Message-ID: <62DC16C614A9554F81C8E2E5C174A98838DA0C7741@CHN-HCLT-EVS16.HCLT.CORP.HCL.IN> References: <8D3D17ACE214DC429325B2B98F3AE71290DCCE8D@MX15A.corp.emc.com> <975552A94CBC0F4DA60ED7B36C949CBA0422ABD9A5@shandy.Beer.Town> <8D3D17ACE214DC429325B2B98F3AE71293AEED99@MX15A.corp.emc.com>, <975552A94CBC0F4DA60ED7B36C949CBA04236143CF@shandy.Beer.Town> In-Reply-To: <975552A94CBC0F4DA60ED7B36C949CBA04236143CF@shandy.Beer.Town> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: acceptlanguage: en-US Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Subject: Re: [storm] iSCSI MIB changes - compliance requirements Q 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: Tue, 02 Apr 2013 16:45:37 -0000 Hi All, I have posted an updated version of the draft: http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-storm-iscsimib-04.txt The new draft has option (b) as per rough consensus of STORM group: new fea= tures are required when implementation supports a value of the iSCSIProtoco= lLevel key of 2 or greater. All the review comments from Gen-ART review have also been incorporated. regards Prakash ________________________________________ From: Mark Bakke [Mark_Bakke@DELL.com] Sent: Tuesday, March 26, 2013 11:35 PM To: Black, David; storm@ietf.org; Prakash Venkatesen, ERS-HCLTech Subject: RE: iSCSI MIB changes - compliance requirements Q Great; thanks, David. Mark -----Original Message---- From: Black, David [mailto:david.black@emc.com] Sent: Monday, March 25, 2013 5:51 PM To: Mark Bakke; storm@ietf.org Subject: RE: iSCSI MIB changes - compliance requirements Q I believe we have rough consensus for option b): > when the revised MIB is implemented (i.e., the implementation claims > compliance to the new iSCSI MIB draft/RFC-to-be), the new features are > required when: > > b) The implementation supports a value of the iSCSIProtocolLevel > key of 2 or greater. The MIB draft authors should update the draft accordingly. Thanks, --David (as storm WG co-chair) > -----Original Message----- > From: Mark Bakke [mailto:Mark_Bakke@dell.com] > Sent: Thursday, March 07, 2013 2:15 PM > To: Black, David; storm@ietf.org > Subject: RE: iSCSI MIB changes - compliance requirements Q > > David, > > Option b seems most practical to me -- I would suspect that the old > MIB is sufficient for most purposes, and there's no need to create a > rush to go implement it sooner. > > Mark > > -----Original Message----- > From: Black, David [mailto:david.black@emc.com] > Sent: Monday, March 04, 2013 5:48 PM > To: storm@ietf.org > Subject: [storm] iSCSI MIB changes - compliance requirements Q > > I'm finally resurfacing from the day job (once again) getting in the > way of IETF work :-). > > In working through the IETF Last Call comments on the iSCSI MIB, an > issue has arisen around MIB compliance requirements. A number of new > objects are being added to the revised iSCSI MIB, and the proposed > approach is to make them optional vs. mandatory to implement based on > the reported value of iSCSIProtocolLevel. > > Here's the list of changes (not all of which are in the current MIB draft= ): > > > . Added iscsiInstXNodeArchitecture to InstanceAttributes > > . Added iscsiSsnTaskReporting of type BITS to SessionAttributes > > . Added iscsiSsnProtocolLevel to SessionAttributes > > . Deprecated the marker objects > > . Fixed the errata to [RFC4544] > > . Added NOP counters at iSCSI session scope for heartbeat tracking > > . Added port number to the iscsiTgtLoginFailure and > > iscsiIntrLoginFailure notifications, and to the last failure info > > in iscsiInitiatorAttributesEntry > > . Added description string to the iSCSI portal > > . Added iscsiInstSsnTgtUnmappedErrors to support "Target Unmapped" > > session failure reporting in the iscsiInstSessionFailure > > notification > > . Added iscsiTgtLogoutCxnClosed and iscsiTgtLogoutCxnRemoved which > > maintain the count of Logout Command PDUs received by the target > > with reason codes 1 and 2 respectively > > . Changed the conformance statements to match the above > > And here are the values of the iSCSI Protocol Level key: > > - 0: No version claimed > - 1: iSCSI consolidated draft/RFC-to-be > - 2: iSCSI consolidated draft/RFC-to-be + new features (SAM) > draft/RFC-to-be > > It's also possible to report the value 2 for an implementation that's > based on the older RFCs (primarily 3720 and 5048) plus the new > features draft/RFC-to- be. > > None of the new objects require the new features (SAM) draft/RFC-to-be. > Also, we can't put any requirements on the value 0 for obvious reasons. > > That leaves two choices - when the revised MIB is implemented (i.e., > the implementation claims compliance to the new iSCSI MIB > draft/RFC-to-be), the new features are required when: > > a) The implementation supports a value of the iSCSIProtocolLevel > key of 1 or greater; OR > b) The implementation supports a value of the iSCSIProtocolLevel > key of 2 or greater. > > Option a) would encourage a MIB update when an implementation is > updated to the iSCSI consolidated draft/RFC-to-be (minor work, as > there's very little functional change). Option b) would encourage a > MIB update when an implementation is updated to the new features (SAM) > draft/RFC-to-be (moderate functional changes). While the existing MIB > RFC will be obsoleted by the new MIB draft/RFC-to-be, it's always > possible to implement the old MIB with a newer implementation. > > I've dithered on this, but my current inclination is to go with b), as > that associates the moderate functional changes in the new MIB with > the moderate functional changes in the new features (SAM) draft. > > What do people think we should do? > > Thanks, > --David > ---------------------------------------------------- > David L. Black, Distinguished Engineer EMC Corporation, 176 South St., > Hopkinton, MA 01748 > +1 (508) 293-7953 FAX: +1 (508) 293-7786 > david.black@emc.com Mobile: +1 (978) 394-7754 > ---------------------------------------------------- > > _______________________________________________ > storm mailing list > storm@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/storm ::DISCLAIMER:: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------= ------------------------------------------------------------------------- The contents of this e-mail and any attachment(s) are confidential and inte= nded for the named recipient(s) only. E-mail transmission is not guaranteed to be secure or error-free as informa= tion could be intercepted, corrupted, lost, destroyed, arrive late or incomplete, or may contain viruses in trans= mission. The e mail and its contents (with or without referred errors) shall therefore not attach any liability = on the originator or HCL or its affiliates. Views or opinions, if any, presented in this email are solely those of the = author and may not necessarily reflect the views or opinions of HCL or its affiliates. Any form of reproduction, disse= mination, copying, disclosure, modification, distribution and / or publication of this message without the prior written= consent of authorized representative of HCL is strictly prohibited. If you have received this email in error please= delete it and notify the sender immediately. Before opening any email and/or attachments, please check them for viruses = and other defects. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------= ------------------------------------------------------------------------- From prakashvn@hcl.com Tue Apr 2 09:53:18 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 E9CEE21F8712; Tue, 2 Apr 2013 09:53:18 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id EJDxhXgM4rhG; Tue, 2 Apr 2013 09:53:17 -0700 (PDT) Received: from GWS07.hcl.com (gws07.hcl.com [192.8.186.130]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9926B21F870F; Tue, 2 Apr 2013 09:53:16 -0700 (PDT) X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.87,394,1363113000"; d="scan'208";a="10111419" Received: from unknown (HELO CHN-CORP-HT01.CORP.HCL.IN) ([10.249.2.33]) by GWS07.hcl.com with ESMTP/TLS/AES128-SHA; 02 Apr 2013 22:21:37 +0530 Received: from CHN-HCLT-HT03.HCLT.CORP.HCL.IN (10.108.45.35) by CHN-CORP-HT01.CORP.HCL.IN (10.249.2.33) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.2.318.1; Tue, 2 Apr 2013 22:23:13 +0530 Received: from CHN-HCLT-EVS16.HCLT.CORP.HCL.IN ([10.108.45.98]) by CHN-HCLT-HT03.HCLT.CORP.HCL.IN ([::1]) with mapi; Tue, 2 Apr 2013 22:23:13 +0530 From: "Prakash Venkatesen, ERS-HCLTech" To: "Romascanu, Dan (Dan)" , "gen-art@ietf.org" Date: Tue, 2 Apr 2013 22:23:13 +0530 Thread-Topic: Gen-ART Review of draft-ietf-storm-iscsimib-03.txt Thread-Index: Ac38ru1wNGisP6GHRvWY2E+60/tmIwzEpz/h Message-ID: <62DC16C614A9554F81C8E2E5C174A98838DA0C7742@CHN-HCLT-EVS16.HCLT.CORP.HCL.IN> References: <9904FB1B0159DA42B0B887B7FA8119CA07867E@AZ-FFEXMB04.global.avaya.com> In-Reply-To: <9904FB1B0159DA42B0B887B7FA8119CA07867E@AZ-FFEXMB04.global.avaya.com> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: acceptlanguage: en-US Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Cc: "storm@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [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: Tue, 02 Apr 2013 16:53:19 -0000 Hi Dan, I have posted an updated version of the draft: http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-storm-iscsimib-04.txt All the review comments from Gen-ART review have been incorporated. Please = note my comments inline, marked Prakash>. regards Prakash ________________________________________ From: Romascanu, Dan (Dan) [dromasca@avaya.com] Sent: Sunday, January 27, 2013 10:35 PM To: gen-art@ietf.org Cc: Prakash Venkatesen, ERS-HCLTech; mark_bakke@dell.com; david.black@emc.c= om; Martin Stiemerling; storm@ietf.org Subject: Gen-ART Review of draft-ietf-storm-iscsimib-03.txt (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. Prakash> As per rough consensus of STORM group, the new features are requir= ed when implementation supports a value of the iSCSIProtocolLevel key of 2 = or greater. The new draft has this change. 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: > 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. Prakash> Fixed this in the new draft: updated Section 5. 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# Prakash> Fixed this in the new draft: updated Security Considerations secti= on. Minor issues: Nits/editorial comments: ::DISCLAIMER:: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------= ------------------------------------------------------------------------- The contents of this e-mail and any attachment(s) are confidential and inte= nded for the named recipient(s) only. E-mail transmission is not guaranteed to be secure or error-free as informa= tion could be intercepted, corrupted, lost, destroyed, arrive late or incomplete, or may contain viruses in trans= mission. The e mail and its contents (with or without referred errors) shall therefore not attach any liability = on the originator or HCL or its affiliates. Views or opinions, if any, presented in this email are solely those of the = author and may not necessarily reflect the views or opinions of HCL or its affiliates. Any form of reproduction, disse= mination, copying, disclosure, modification, distribution and / or publication of this message without the prior written= consent of authorized representative of HCL is strictly prohibited. If you have received this email in error please= delete it and notify the sender immediately. Before opening any email and/or attachments, please check them for viruses = and other defects. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------= ------------------------------------------------------------------------- From prakashvn@hcl.com Wed Apr 3 05:16:13 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 E429021F8BF8; Wed, 3 Apr 2013 05:16:13 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id PylzjxAdmLxl; Wed, 3 Apr 2013 05:16:13 -0700 (PDT) Received: from GWS08.hcl.com (gws08.hcl.com [192.8.186.131]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EF85521F8BC5; Wed, 3 Apr 2013 05:16:11 -0700 (PDT) X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.87,401,1363113000"; d="scan'208";a="10118904" Received: from unknown (HELO CHN-CORP-HT01.CORP.HCL.IN) ([10.249.2.33]) by GWS08.hcl.com with ESMTP/TLS/AES128-SHA; 03 Apr 2013 17:48:27 +0530 Received: from CHN-HCLT-HT04.HCLT.CORP.HCL.IN (10.108.45.37) by CHN-CORP-HT01.CORP.HCL.IN (10.249.2.33) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.2.318.1; Wed, 3 Apr 2013 17:46:09 +0530 Received: from CHN-HCLT-EVS16.HCLT.CORP.HCL.IN ([10.108.45.98]) by CHN-HCLT-HT04.HCLT.CORP.HCL.IN ([::1]) with mapi; Wed, 3 Apr 2013 17:46:08 +0530 From: "Prakash Venkatesen, ERS-HCLTech" To: "Romascanu, Dan (Dan)" , "gen-art@ietf.org" Date: Wed, 3 Apr 2013 17:46:08 +0530 Thread-Topic: Gen-ART Review of draft-ietf-storm-iscsimib-03.txt Thread-Index: Ac38ru1wNGisP6GHRvWY2E+60/tmIwzEpz/hACbySkAAASBrEg== Message-ID: <62DC16C614A9554F81C8E2E5C174A98838DA0C7744@CHN-HCLT-EVS16.HCLT.CORP.HCL.IN> References: <9904FB1B0159DA42B0B887B7FA8119CA07867E@AZ-FFEXMB04.global.avaya.com> <62DC16C614A9554F81C8E2E5C174A98838DA0C7742@CHN-HCLT-EVS16.HCLT.CORP.HCL.IN>, <9904FB1B0159DA42B0B887B7FA8119CA0C06C6@AZ-FFEXMB04.global.avaya.com> In-Reply-To: <9904FB1B0159DA42B0B887B7FA8119CA0C06C6@AZ-FFEXMB04.global.avaya.com> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: acceptlanguage: en-US Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Cc: "storm@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [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: Wed, 03 Apr 2013 12:16:14 -0000 Hi Dan, An RFC 4544 based implementation should continue to work. The value of iSCS= IProtocolLevel to be 2 or higher is required to enable use of features in i= SCSI SCSI Feature update (iscsi-sam). The new objects are required only whe= n the iSCSIProtocolLevel is negotiated to 2 or higher. It is defined as a C= onditionally mandatory group. Please note the corresponding portions of the= MIB module below: -- iscsiNewObjectsV2 OBJECT-GROUP OBJECTS { iscsiInstXNodeArchitecture, iscsiSsnTaskReporting, iscsiSsnProtocolLevel, iscsiSsnNopReceivedPDUs, iscsiSsnNopSentPDUs, iscsiIntrLastTgtFailurePort, iscsiTgtLastIntrFailurePort, iscsiPortalDescr, iscsiInstSsnTgtUnmappedErrors, iscsiTgtLogoutCxnClosed, iscsiTgtLogoutCxnRemoved } STATUS current DESCRIPTION "A collection of objects added in the second version of the iSCSI MIB." -- GROUP iscsiNewObjectsV2 DESCRIPTION "This group is mandatory for all iSCSI implementations that support a value of the iSCSIProtocolLevel key of 2 or greater." -- When an implementation is upgraded to enable using the features of iscsi-sa= m, it should start using the new MIB module as well. Until then, the new ob= jects are not required. regards Prakash ________________________________________ From: Romascanu, Dan (Dan) [dromasca@avaya.com] Sent: Wednesday, April 03, 2013 5:01 PM To: Prakash Venkatesen, ERS-HCLTech; gen-art@ietf.org Cc: mark_bakke@dell.com; david.black@emc.com; Martin Stiemerling; storm@iet= f.org Subject: RE: Gen-ART Review of draft-ietf-storm-iscsimib-03.txt Hi Prakash, Thank you for addressing the issues raised in the Gen-ART review. The chang= es made on issues 2 and 3 are fine, however, one clarification is still nee= ded regarding the first issue. See below (agreed stuff deleted). > -----Original Message----- > From: Prakash Venkatesen, ERS-HCLTech [mailto:prakashvn@hcl.com] > > Summary: Almost Ready > > Major issues: > > 1) This document will obsolete (when approved) RFC 4544, and add support > for iSCSI protocol evolution according to the consolidated version of > the iSCSI protocol (as per draft-ietf-storm-iscsi-cons) and for the > updates to iSCSI (as per draft-ietf-storm-iscsi-sam) for ProtocolLevel. > There is no indication however in for the operators when an upgrade is > recommended or becomes mandatory, and which version of the protocol is > to be used during the transition, function of the iSCSI versions of the > protocol. > > Prakash> As per rough consensus of STORM group, the new features are > required when implementation supports a value of the iSCSIProtocolLevel > key of 2 or greater. The new draft has this change. > [[DR]] 'the new features are required' means that the MIB support MUST be u= pdated accordingly when the iSCSI updates are deployed? In other words, wou= ld an RFC 4544 - based implementation break, or it will continue to work (w= ith functional limitations) until the updated MIB version is introduced? Thanks and Regards, Dan ::DISCLAIMER:: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------= ------------------------------------------------------------------------- The contents of this e-mail and any attachment(s) are confidential and inte= nded for the named recipient(s) only. E-mail transmission is not guaranteed to be secure or error-free as informa= tion could be intercepted, corrupted, lost, destroyed, arrive late or incomplete, or may contain viruses in trans= mission. The e mail and its contents (with or without referred errors) shall therefore not attach any liability = on the originator or HCL or its affiliates. Views or opinions, if any, presented in this email are solely those of the = author and may not necessarily reflect the views or opinions of HCL or its affiliates. Any form of reproduction, disse= mination, copying, disclosure, modification, distribution and / or publication of this message without the prior written= consent of authorized representative of HCL is strictly prohibited. If you have received this email in error please= delete it and notify the sender immediately. Before opening any email and/or attachments, please check them for viruses = and other defects. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------= ------------------------------------------------------------------------- From dromasca@avaya.com Wed Apr 3 04:31:08 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 0702C21F8A6D; Wed, 3 Apr 2013 04:31:08 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -103.161 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-103.161 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.562, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id KOyD216aLnM7; Wed, 3 Apr 2013 04:31:07 -0700 (PDT) Received: from p-us1-iereast-outbound.us1.avaya.com (p-us1-iereast-outbound.us1.avaya.com [135.11.29.13]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 695AE21F8A7E; Wed, 3 Apr 2013 04:31:07 -0700 (PDT) X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AgIFALh+MVHGmAcF/2dsb2JhbABEgma/XoEAFnOCHwEBAQEDEig/DAQCAQgNCA0UCQcyFBEBAQQBDQUIGodxAaQnnEOObCYLB4JfYQOcXIpSgwiCJw X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.84,766,1355115600"; d="scan'208";a="5335621" Received: from unknown (HELO co300216-co-erhwest.avaya.com) ([198.152.7.5]) by p-us1-iereast-outbound.us1.avaya.com with ESMTP; 03 Apr 2013 07:31:06 -0400 Received: from unknown (HELO AZ-FFEXHC01.global.avaya.com) ([135.64.58.11]) by co300216-co-erhwest-out.avaya.com with ESMTP; 03 Apr 2013 07:28:41 -0400 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; Wed, 3 Apr 2013 07:31:04 -0400 From: "Romascanu, Dan (Dan)" To: "Prakash Venkatesen, ERS-HCLTech" , "gen-art@ietf.org" Thread-Topic: Gen-ART Review of draft-ietf-storm-iscsimib-03.txt Thread-Index: Ac38ru1wNGisP6GHRvWY2E+60/tmIwzEpz/hACbySkA= Date: Wed, 3 Apr 2013 11:31:03 +0000 Message-ID: <9904FB1B0159DA42B0B887B7FA8119CA0C06C6@AZ-FFEXMB04.global.avaya.com> References: <9904FB1B0159DA42B0B887B7FA8119CA07867E@AZ-FFEXMB04.global.avaya.com> <62DC16C614A9554F81C8E2E5C174A98838DA0C7742@CHN-HCLT-EVS16.HCLT.CORP.HCL.IN> In-Reply-To: <62DC16C614A9554F81C8E2E5C174A98838DA0C7742@CHN-HCLT-EVS16.HCLT.CORP.HCL.IN> 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: Wed, 03 Apr 2013 10:17:32 -0700 Cc: "storm@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [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: Wed, 03 Apr 2013 11:31:08 -0000 Hi Prakash, Thank you for addressing the issues raised in the Gen-ART review. The chang= es made on issues 2 and 3 are fine, however, one clarification is still nee= ded regarding the first issue. See below (agreed stuff deleted). > -----Original Message----- > From: Prakash Venkatesen, ERS-HCLTech [mailto:prakashvn@hcl.com] >=20 > Summary: Almost Ready >=20 > Major issues: >=20 > 1) This document will obsolete (when approved) RFC 4544, and add support > for iSCSI protocol evolution according to the consolidated version of > the iSCSI protocol (as per draft-ietf-storm-iscsi-cons) and for the > updates to iSCSI (as per draft-ietf-storm-iscsi-sam) for ProtocolLevel. > There is no indication however in for the operators when an upgrade is > recommended or becomes mandatory, and which version of the protocol is > to be used during the transition, function of the iSCSI versions of the > protocol. >=20 > Prakash> As per rough consensus of STORM group, the new features are > required when implementation supports a value of the iSCSIProtocolLevel > key of 2 or greater. The new draft has this change. >=20 [[DR]] 'the new features are required' means that the MIB support MUST be u= pdated accordingly when the iSCSI updates are deployed? In other words, wou= ld an RFC 4544 - based implementation break, or it will continue to work (w= ith functional limitations) until the updated MIB version is introduced?=20 Thanks and Regards, Dan From dromasca@avaya.com Wed Apr 3 05:20:29 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 5783E21F8554; Wed, 3 Apr 2013 05:20:28 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -103.581 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-103.581 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.018, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id HIcSh4fY+9Xy; Wed, 3 Apr 2013 05:20:27 -0700 (PDT) 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 A094321F8548; Wed, 3 Apr 2013 05:20:26 -0700 (PDT) X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AgIFAFupNVHGmAcF/2dsb2JhbABEgma/boEEFnOCHwEBAQEDEig/DAQCAQgNBAQBAQsUCQcyFAkIAQEEAQ0FCBqHcQGhVZ0gjUsQDXMmCwcGgllhA5xkilSDCIFrBxce X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.84,786,1355115600"; d="scan'208";a="4030412" Received: from unknown (HELO co300216-co-erhwest.avaya.com) ([198.152.7.5]) by de307622-de-outbound.net.avaya.com with ESMTP; 03 Apr 2013 08:20:24 -0400 Received: from unknown (HELO AZ-FFEXHC03.global.avaya.com) ([135.64.58.13]) by co300216-co-erhwest-out.avaya.com with ESMTP; 03 Apr 2013 08:17:59 -0400 Received: from AZ-FFEXMB04.global.avaya.com ([fe80::6db7:b0af:8480:c126]) by AZ-FFEXHC03.global.avaya.com ([135.64.58.13]) with mapi id 14.02.0328.009; Wed, 3 Apr 2013 08:20:22 -0400 From: "Romascanu, Dan (Dan)" To: "Prakash Venkatesen, ERS-HCLTech" , "gen-art@ietf.org" Thread-Topic: Gen-ART Review of draft-ietf-storm-iscsimib-03.txt Thread-Index: Ac38ru1wNGisP6GHRvWY2E+60/tmIwzEpz/hACbySkAAASBrEgAA673g Date: Wed, 3 Apr 2013 12:20:22 +0000 Message-ID: <9904FB1B0159DA42B0B887B7FA8119CA0C08D2@AZ-FFEXMB04.global.avaya.com> References: <9904FB1B0159DA42B0B887B7FA8119CA07867E@AZ-FFEXMB04.global.avaya.com> <62DC16C614A9554F81C8E2E5C174A98838DA0C7742@CHN-HCLT-EVS16.HCLT.CORP.HCL.IN>, <9904FB1B0159DA42B0B887B7FA8119CA0C06C6@AZ-FFEXMB04.global.avaya.com> <62DC16C614A9554F81C8E2E5C174A98838DA0C7744@CHN-HCLT-EVS16.HCLT.CORP.HCL.IN> In-Reply-To: <62DC16C614A9554F81C8E2E5C174A98838DA0C7744@CHN-HCLT-EVS16.HCLT.CORP.HCL.IN> 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: Wed, 03 Apr 2013 10:17:35 -0700 Cc: "storm@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [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: Wed, 03 Apr 2013 12:20:29 -0000 Hi Prakash, Thanks for this further clarification.=20 >From my perspective the document is Ready.=20 Regards, Dan > -----Original Message----- > From: Prakash Venkatesen, ERS-HCLTech [mailto:prakashvn@hcl.com] > Sent: Wednesday, April 03, 2013 3:16 PM > To: Romascanu, Dan (Dan); gen-art@ietf.org > Cc: mark_bakke@dell.com; david.black@emc.com; Martin Stiemerling; > storm@ietf.org > Subject: RE: Gen-ART Review of draft-ietf-storm-iscsimib-03.txt >=20 > Hi Dan, > An RFC 4544 based implementation should continue to work. The value of > iSCSIProtocolLevel to be 2 or higher is required to enable use of > features in iSCSI SCSI Feature update (iscsi-sam). The new objects are > required only when the iSCSIProtocolLevel is negotiated to 2 or higher. > It is defined as a Conditionally mandatory group. Please note the > corresponding portions of the MIB module below: > -- > iscsiNewObjectsV2 OBJECT-GROUP > OBJECTS { > iscsiInstXNodeArchitecture, > iscsiSsnTaskReporting, > iscsiSsnProtocolLevel, > iscsiSsnNopReceivedPDUs, > iscsiSsnNopSentPDUs, > iscsiIntrLastTgtFailurePort, > iscsiTgtLastIntrFailurePort, > iscsiPortalDescr, > iscsiInstSsnTgtUnmappedErrors, > iscsiTgtLogoutCxnClosed, > iscsiTgtLogoutCxnRemoved > } > STATUS current > DESCRIPTION > "A collection of objects added in the second version of the > iSCSI MIB." > -- > GROUP iscsiNewObjectsV2 > DESCRIPTION > "This group is mandatory for all iSCSI implementations > that support a value of the iSCSIProtocolLevel key of > 2 or greater." > -- > When an implementation is upgraded to enable using the features of > iscsi-sam, it should start using the new MIB module as well. Until then, > the new objects are not required. >=20 > regards > Prakash >=20 > ________________________________________ > From: Romascanu, Dan (Dan) [dromasca@avaya.com] > Sent: Wednesday, April 03, 2013 5:01 PM > To: Prakash Venkatesen, ERS-HCLTech; gen-art@ietf.org > Cc: mark_bakke@dell.com; david.black@emc.com; Martin Stiemerling; > storm@ietf.org > Subject: RE: Gen-ART Review of draft-ietf-storm-iscsimib-03.txt >=20 > Hi Prakash, >=20 > Thank you for addressing the issues raised in the Gen-ART review. The > changes made on issues 2 and 3 are fine, however, one clarification is > still needed regarding the first issue. See below (agreed stuff > deleted). >=20 >=20 >=20 >=20 >=20 > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Prakash Venkatesen, ERS-HCLTech [mailto:prakashvn@hcl.com] > > > > Summary: Almost Ready > > > > Major issues: > > > > 1) This document will obsolete (when approved) RFC 4544, and add > > support for iSCSI protocol evolution according to the consolidated > > version of the iSCSI protocol (as per draft-ietf-storm-iscsi-cons) and > > for the updates to iSCSI (as per draft-ietf-storm-iscsi-sam) for > ProtocolLevel. > > There is no indication however in for the operators when an upgrade is > > recommended or becomes mandatory, and which version of the protocol is > > to be used during the transition, function of the iSCSI versions of > > the protocol. > > > > Prakash> As per rough consensus of STORM group, the new features are > > required when implementation supports a value of the > > iSCSIProtocolLevel key of 2 or greater. The new draft has this change. > > >=20 > [[DR]] 'the new features are required' means that the MIB support MUST > be updated accordingly when the iSCSI updates are deployed? In other > words, would an RFC 4544 - based implementation break, or it will > continue to work (with functional limitations) until the updated MIB > version is introduced? >=20 > Thanks and Regards, >=20 > Dan >=20 >=20 > ::DISCLAIMER:: > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > ---- >=20 > The contents of this e-mail and any attachment(s) are confidential and > intended for the named recipient(s) only. > E-mail transmission is not guaranteed to be secure or error-free as > information could be intercepted, corrupted, lost, destroyed, arrive > late or incomplete, or may contain viruses in transmission. The e mail > and its contents (with or without referred errors) shall therefore not > attach any liability on the originator or HCL or its affiliates. > Views or opinions, if any, presented in this email are solely those of > the author and may not necessarily reflect the views or opinions of HCL > or its affiliates. Any form of reproduction, dissemination, copying, > disclosure, modification, distribution and / or publication of this > message without the prior written consent of authorized representative > of HCL is strictly prohibited. If you have received this email in error > please delete it and notify the sender immediately. > Before opening any email and/or attachments, please check them for > viruses and other defects. >=20 > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > ---- From david.black@emc.com Fri Apr 26 12:26:43 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 8CEDC21F9953 for ; Fri, 26 Apr 2013 12:26:43 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -101.3 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-101.3 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=1.300, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id H1nkXxnvfn-H for ; Fri, 26 Apr 2013 12:26:43 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mexforward.lss.emc.com (hop-nat-141.emc.com [168.159.213.141]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D45B721F9952 for ; Fri, 26 Apr 2013 12:26:42 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hop04-l1d11-si02.isus.emc.com (HOP04-L1D11-SI02.isus.emc.com [10.254.111.55]) by mexforward.lss.emc.com (Switch-3.4.3/Switch-3.4.3) with ESMTP id r3QJQfxQ002667 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Fri, 26 Apr 2013 15:26:41 -0400 Received: from mailhub.lss.emc.com (mailhubhoprd06.lss.emc.com [10.254.222.130]) by hop04-l1d11-si02.isus.emc.com (RSA Interceptor) for ; Fri, 26 Apr 2013 15:26:27 -0400 Received: from mxhub27.corp.emc.com (mxhub27.corp.emc.com [10.254.110.183]) by mailhub.lss.emc.com (Switch-3.4.3/Switch-3.4.3) with ESMTP id r3QJQR2t010038 for ; Fri, 26 Apr 2013 15:26:27 -0400 Received: from mx15a.corp.emc.com ([169.254.1.81]) by mxhub27.corp.emc.com ([10.254.110.183]) with mapi; Fri, 26 Apr 2013 15:26:27 -0400 From: "Black, David" To: "storm@ietf.org" Date: Fri, 26 Apr 2013 15:26:25 -0400 Thread-Topic: storm WG draft status Thread-Index: Ac5Cs/GIxn6hUssvQGqIdf08+NbGkA== Message-ID: <8D3D17ACE214DC429325B2B98F3AE71293F3BFC2@MX15A.corp.emc.com> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: acceptlanguage: en-US Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 X-EMM-MHVC: 1 Subject: [storm] storm WG draft status 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: Fri, 26 Apr 2013 19:26:43 -0000 It's time for another one of my occasional "where are we?" messages on the storm WG's drafts. 1) iSCSI consolidated draft. We're still working through the "punch list" of things that need attention as a result of IESG evaluation. Expect to see more list traffic soon on some of these. There will be at least one more version of this draft, possibly two to get everything. 2) iSCSI SAM (new features) draft. A new version of this draft should appear in the next few days that resolves all of the IETF Last Call comments. That version will need another WG Last Call, primarily to check that the iSCSIProtocolLevel text key, and its associated new registry are specified correctly. 3) iSCSI MIB draft. The IETF Last Call and MIB Doctor review comments have been resolved in the latest version. It's waiting for the iSCSI SAM draft because the MIB's compliance provisions depend on the value of the iSCSIProtocolLevel text key. 4) iSER draft. All of the IETF Last Call comments on this draft were resolved back in January except for the IPsec profile update ... and that's now turned into a "pull the thread and the whole sleeve falls off" experience that's going to require another draft (next item). 5) After working through the IPsec profile situation around iSER, where we were headed for two different IPsec profiles for iSCSI/iSER vs. iWARP, it's (unfortunately) become apparent that the right thing to do is update the IPsec profile in RFC 3723 across the board. Moreover, it's also become clear that the iSCSI consolidated draft is not a good or appropriate vehicle for that broad an update, so a new draft will be needed. Expect to see a -00 version of that draft surface in the next couple of weeks. As was the case with the RDDP registries draft, this draft will be headed into WG Last Call in short order, with a goal of getting it out of the WG by the end of May. The iSCSI consolidated draft and the iSER draft will need normative references to this draft (plus associated text changes), and the iSCSI SAM draft will pick this draft's changes up indirectly via its existing normative reference to the iSCSI consolidated draft. 6) That leaves the RDMA Extensions draft, whose authors have been patiently waiting for the above to complete. I now intend to send that draft to WG Last Call by the first part of June (I want to review it before then). I offer my usual apology for delays caused by my day job having the temerity to interfere with my IETF activity :-). Please feel free to send questions to the list or directly to me. Thanks, --David (storm WG co-chair) ---------------------------------------------------- David L. Black, Distinguished Engineer EMC Corporation, 176 South St., Hopkinton, MA=A0 01748 +1 (508) 293-7953=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 FAX: +1 (508) 293-778= 6 david.black@emc.com=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 Mobile: +1 (978) 394-7754 ---------------------------------------------------- From hammondjohnson@hushmail.com Sat Apr 27 14:06:49 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 5ED4A21F990D for ; Sat, 27 Apr 2013 14:06:49 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id v8gPYRS8NSmb for ; Sat, 27 Apr 2013 14:06:48 -0700 (PDT) Received: from smtp1.hushmail.com (smtp1a.hushmail.com [65.39.178.236]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7AF3921F9908 for ; Sat, 27 Apr 2013 14:06:48 -0700 (PDT) Received: from smtp1.hushmail.com (smtp1a.hushmail.com [65.39.178.236]) by smtp1.hushmail.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 16E213055F for ; Sat, 27 Apr 2013 17:49:58 +0000 (UTC) X-hush-relay-time: 214 X-hush-relay-id: b1bd903faba185ee07e5a0ed3a1fde37 Received: from smtp.hushmail.com (w5.hushmail.com [65.39.178.80]) by smtp1.hushmail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP for ; Sat, 27 Apr 2013 17:49:57 +0000 (UTC) Received: by smtp.hushmail.com (Postfix, from userid 99) id C6B7CE6736; Sat, 27 Apr 2013 17:49:57 +0000 (UTC) MIME-Version: 1.0 Date: Sat, 27 Apr 2013 13:49:57 -0400 To: storm@ietf.org From: hammondjohnson@hushmail.com Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Message-Id: <20130427174957.C6B7CE6736@smtp.hushmail.com> Subject: [storm] Biggest Fake Conference in Computer Science 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: Sat, 27 Apr 2013 21:06:49 -0000 We are researchers from different parts of the world and conducted a study on the world’s biggest bogus computer science conference WORLDCOMP ( http://sites.google.com/site/worlddump1 ) organized by Prof. Hamid Arabnia from University of Georgia, USA. We submitted a fake paper to WORLDCOMP 2011 and again (the same paper with a modified title) to WORLDCOMP 2012. This paper had numerous fundamental mistakes. Sample statements from that paper include: (1). Binary logic is fuzzy logic and vice versa (2). Pascal developed fuzzy logic (3). Object oriented languages do not exhibit any polymorphism or inheritance (4). TCP and IP are synonyms and are part of OSI model (5). Distributed systems deal with only one computer (6). Laptop is an example for a super computer (7). Operating system is an example for computer hardware Also, our paper did not express any conceptual meaning. However, it was accepted both the times without any modifications (and without any reviews) and we were invited to submit the final paper and a payment of $500+ fee to present the paper. We decided to use the fee for better purposes than making Prof. Hamid Arabnia (Chairman of WORLDCOMP) rich. After that, we received few reminders from WORLDCOMP to pay the fee but we never responded. We MUST say that you should look at the above website if you have any thoughts to submit a paper to WORLDCOMP. DBLP and other indexing agencies have stopped indexing WORLDCOMP’s proceedings since 2011 due to its fakeness. See http://www.informatik.uni-trier.de/~ley/db/conf/icai/index.html for of one of the conferences of WORLDCOMP and notice that there is no listing after 2010. See Section 2 of http://sites.google.com/site/dumpconf for comments from well-known researchers about WORLDCOMP. The status of your WORLDCOMP papers can be changed from scientific to other (i.e., junk or non-technical) at any time. Better not to have a paper than having it in WORLDCOMP and spoil the resume and peace of mind forever! Our study revealed that WORLDCOMP is a money making business, using University of Georgia mask, for Prof. Hamid Arabnia. He is throwing out a small chunk of that money (around 20 dollars per paper published in WORLDCOMP’s proceedings) to his puppet (Mr. Ashu Solo or A.M.G. Solo) who publicizes WORLDCOMP and also defends it at various forums, using fake/anonymous names. The puppet uses fake names and defames other conferences to divert traffic to WORLDCOMP. He also makes anonymous phone calls and tries to threaten the critiques of WORLDCOMP (See Item 7 of Section 5 of above website). That is, the puppet does all his best to get a maximum number of papers published at WORLDCOMP to get more money into his (and Prof. Hamid Arabnia’s) pockets. Monte Carlo Resort (the venue of WORLDCOMP for more than 10 years, until 2012) has refused to provide the venue for WORLDCOMP’13 because of the fears of their image being tarnished due to WORLDCOMP’s fraudulent activities. That is why WORLDCOMP’13 is taking place at a different resort. WORLDCOMP will not be held after 2013. The draft paper submission deadline is over but still there are no committee members, no reviewers, and there is no conference Chairman. The only contact details available on WORLDCOMP’s website is just an email address! Let us make a direct request to Prof. Hamid arabnia: publish all reviews for all the papers (after blocking identifiable details) since 2000 conference. Reveal the names and affiliations of all the reviewers (for each year) and how many papers each reviewer had reviewed on average. We also request him to look at the Open Challenge (Section 6) at https://sites.google.com/site/moneycomp1 Sorry for posting to multiple lists. Spreading the word is the only way to stop this bogus conference. Please forward this message to other mailing lists and people. We are shocked with Prof. Hamid Arabnia and his puppet’s activities http://worldcomp-fake-bogus.blogspot.com Search Google using the keyword worldcomp fake for additional links.