Subject: RE: IPS and SCTP

From: [email-masked]
Date: Tue, 27 Aug 2002 18:40:44 -0400

Brian,

> Sure.  Perhaps a start would be (for me) to write an
> individual submission extension draft for running, say,
> iSCSI over SCTP.  Would that be of interest to this WG?
> What would be the best timing for such a submission?

I can't speak for the WG as a whole, but that sounds like
a reasonable course of action to me.  Getting a first
version of your draft submitted far enough in advance
of the Atlanta meetings so that people will have time to read
and consider it (i.e., well before the "just prior to the
deadline" draft deluge) ought to allow the WG the opportunity
to decide whether to make it an official work item in Atlanta.

A few iSCSI over SCTP things to start with:
- Header digests can be eliminated since SCTP now uses CRC32C,
	and should result in a visible simplification of error
	recovery.
- Unless SCTP has changed to allow load balancing as part of
	its multi-homing/failover support, iSCSI sessions will
	need to support multiple SCTP sessions per connection
	for load balancing.
- SCTP's ability to avoid head-of-line blocking should be useful
	when immediate delivery of iSCSI commands is requested.

Enjoy,
--David
---------------------------------------------------
David L. Black, Senior Technologist
EMC Corporation, 42 South St., Hopkinton, MA  01748
+1 (508) 249-6449            FAX: +1 (508) 497-8018
[email-masked]       Mobile: +1 (978) 394-7754
---------------------------------------------------

---

From: "Brian F. G. Bidulock" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 27 Aug 2002 16:49:49 -0600

David,

Thanks for the tips.  I think that it should be possible
to release a draft before the Atlanta meeting.  Can I bounce
preliminary drafts off of you?

--brian

-- 
Brian F. G. Bidulock    ¦ The reasonable man adapts himself to the ¦
[email-masked]    ¦ world; the unreasonable one persists in  ¦
http://www.openss7.org/ ¦ trying  to adapt the  world  to himself. ¦
                        ¦ Therefore  all  progress  depends on the ¦
                        ¦ unreasonable man. -- George Bernard Shaw ¦

---

From: Mark Bakke <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 28 Aug 2002 10:23:06 -0500

Just one clarification; although header digests can be eliminated,
data digests must remain for the same reasons given in the
security draft.

--
Mark

-- 
Mark A. Bakke
Cisco Systems
[email-masked]
763.398.1054