FCP-4: Letter Ballot Comment HPQ-219

Ralph Weber roweber at IEEE.org
Fri Oct 29 15:53:55 PDT 2010


* From the T10 Reflector (t10 at t10.org), posted by:
* Ralph Weber <roweber at ieee.org>
*
Fred,
Would a reminder that the FCP-4 group plans to request a second Letter
Ballot do anything to calm your fears about a late-breaking shall?
All the best,
.Ralph
On 10/29/2010 1:55 PM, Knight, Frederick wrote:
>
> I tend to agree that it’s pretty late for a new SHALL.
>
> Fred Knight
>
> *From:*Bob.Nixon at emulex.com [mailto:Bob.Nixon at emulex.com]
> *Sent:* Thursday, October 28, 2010 5:17 PM
> *To:* dpeterso at brocade.com; t10 at t10.org
> *Subject:* RE: FCP-4: Letter Ballot Comment HPQ-219
>
> In the first added paragraph, “…the Platform Name shall be the same as 
> the SCSI device name” raises a good idea, but adds a new “shall” too 
> late in the game for my taste. Platform Name has never been mentioned 
> in FCP before. I would be happy with a “should”.
>
> The long discussion of names reported by virtualized OSs leaves me 
> confused on a couple points:
>
> 1.It specifically relates to names “reported through all the SCSI 
> initiator ports”. A Target has a VPD page, but how does an initiator 
> report its name?
>
> 2.Is there a change being suggested for FCP-4?
>
> -bob
>
> *From:*owner-t10 at t10.org [mailto:owner-t10 at t10.org] *On Behalf Of 
> *David Peterson
> *Sent:* Thursday, October 28, 2010 1:18 PM
> *To:* t10 at t10.org
> *Subject:* FCP-4: Letter Ballot Comment HPQ-219
>
> HPQ-219 states:
>
> At 9.93 in down and 0.41 in over
> Add:
> "Each FCP device should include a SCSI device name in NAA IEEE 
> Registered format (see SPC-4). If the FCP device includes a Platform 
> Name (see FC-GS-6), then the Platform Name shall be the same as the 
> SCSI device name.
>
> In the Device Identification VPD page, a device server in an FCP 
> target device that implements a SCSI device name:
> a) shall report the SCSI device name in binary NAA format; and
> b) should report the SCSI device name in SCSI name string format 
> (e.g., "naa." followed by 16 hexadecimal digits followed by 4 ASCII 
> null characters)."
>
> Also add this to the SAM-5 names & identifiers annex (IEEE Registered 
> format, 8 bytes).
>
> SAM-4 allows a transport protocol to mandate implementing device names 
> and define their format.
>
> Node names were never well defined in FC, always unclear whether they 
> named a Port, an HBA (a set of Ports on the same card), or a system 
> (set of cards in a system). They are thus worthless.
>
> Platform name supposedly provides clearer guidance, identifying the 
> entire system - the same scope as a SCSI device name.
>
> With NPIV and server virtualization gaining popularity, it would be 
> helpful to have a unique identifier for each operating system 
> instance, reported through all the SCSI initiator ports (whether NPIV 
> or physical) that the operating system uses. If the operating system 
> instance is shut down and restarted on a different physical machine, 
> that identifier should move with it. This identifier should even work 
> if the operating system has access to a mix of protocols - e.g. some 
> FCP ports, some iSCSI ports, and some SAS ports. The same NAA IEEE 
> Registered identifier can be reported and used in FCP (both binary and 
> as a "naa." string) , SAS (both binary and as a "naa." string) and 
> iSCSI (as a "naa." string). A system that doesn't have iSCSI ports 
> could just report the binary NAA format.
>
> The device name would be helpful for configuring V-SANs, zoning, SCSI 
> access controls, etc. For example, the system administrator could 
> grant certain zoning permissions to an operating system instance, no 
> matter which physical machine it happens to be running on and which 
> ports it happens to be using.
>
> I have no problem with adding accepting this comment. Please respond 
> with any objections along with your reasoning asap.
>
> Note I plan to move to accept the letter ballot comments at November 
> T10 and will have the comments and draft standard uploaded shortly. 
> There will be one comment open from my perspective and that comment is 
> on the CAP agenda.
>
> Also please consider the need/desire for a second letter ballot on FCP-4.
>
> Thanks…Dave
>
*
* For T10 Reflector information, send a message with
* 'info t10' (no quotes) in the message body to majordomo at t10.org



More information about the T10 mailing list