Subject: iSCSI requirements drafts

From: [email-masked]
Date: Mon, 2 Apr 2001 14:33:37 +0200

Marjorie & team,

I hope this gets to you before the deadline.

A very good document - and up to now it behaves like good wine - it gets
better as it ages -:)

Here re some comments.

Regards,
Julo
_____________

On page 1 "will entail a minimum of new invention" I think you would like
to say "will entail a minimum of research".

On page 3 - the summary of the MUST  (and at section 4.1) you would like to
say "MUST specify how to recover" instead of "MUST provide the ability to
recover" (as the general agreed position of the group is that recovery is
mostly not mandatory to implement).
Page 5 - the summary - reference to 7.1 - iSCSI SHOULD deal with the
complications of the new SCSI security architecture - is a hard to
understand.

Page 5 - the summary - reference to 8.2 - "any login or connect command"
should read "read any login or connect phase" as the names may appear at
later points in the phase due to security

Page 7 - I think you would like to take out the "completion of requirements
and specification of prerequisites for the "full realization of iSCSI"
(whatever that means!) and say something  like a "a stable and widely
accepted standard".

Page 8 - 3.2 first paragraph is a nice piece of education in
cost/perforformance vs. performance/cost. I guess you would like to remove
it as it adds little to the rest of the document and is controversial
(cost/performance is bounded by 0 while performance/cost is potentially
unbounded)

Page 11 - 5th paragraph - the current consensus is that connection binding
is part of the protocol but optional to implement (mandatory to specify in
the requirements lingo). The text should reflect this.

Page 11 - 8th paragraph -- I think you would like to strike the first
statement (about symmetric vs. asymmetric).  The question has been solved
by hiatus (nobody is pursuing the asymmetric approach). To my chagrin I
can't find the spare time to pursue it and it doesn't look that there are
many noble souls willing to take it up out there.

Page 13 - 5.2 3rd paragraph -- I think that you would like to change "iSCSI
shall have no impact on T10 architecture" into 'iSCSI shall require no
changes to T10 architecture" (it will certainly impact T10 architecture
;:)).

Page 15 - 6.3 Data Integrity - I think that the statement "Two header CRCs
one for the ... " is not representing a fact (as "strongest integrity
check" suggests a numeric scale that is not there) nor a consensus of the
group. As such I think you may want to remove it.
Page 17 - 8.2 - See my previous comment on names in the login phase