Re: [AAA-DOCTORS] [OPS-DIR] FW: Internal WG Review: STORage Maintenance (storm)

[Lars Eggert <[e-mail]>]

Hi,

On 2009-4-28, at 12:29, Ersue, Mehmet (NSN - DE/Munich) wrote:
> unfortunately I missed the Storm BoF in SF. I also was not aware of
> the discussion on the maillists you mention.
>
> I made the experience that announcing a BoF maillist to IETF and
> forcing some discussion on this maillist with IETF member  
> participation
> is a good way to show IESG that there is measurable IETF community
> interest.

as David said below, there was discussion on the still-existing RDDP,  
IPS and IMSS lists, and the BOF went - in my opinion - very well. I  
believe community interest has been demonstrated, which is why we're  
going forward with a charter proposal.

> The huge amount of people in the session, which are sometimes
> occasionally in the room and vote, usually disappear when it comes to
> maillist discussion. Also for our regular WG work the decisions have
> to be confirmed on the maillist.
>
> As I said I believe this is an important and necessary consolidation
> work but should be discussed and accepted first in the IETF community.

I don't quite know what to do with you comment. Are you saying there  
hasn't been sufficient discussion to go forward with the chartering?  
Or am I misunderstanding?

I'll also note that the community obviously still has time to comment  
- the charter is in internal I* review at this time, after which it  
will go for public review.

Lars

>
> Cheers,
> Mehmet
>
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: ext [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]]
>> Sent: Tuesday, April 28, 2009 2:32 PM
>> To: Ersue, Mehmet (NSN - DE/Munich)
>> Cc: [e-mail]; [e-mail]
>> Subject: RE: [OPS-DIR] FW: Internal WG Review: STORage
>> Maintenance (storm)
>>
>> Mehmet,
>>
>> The storm list is completely new (it was only opened for people
>> to subscribe within the past few days).  The storm BOF in San
>> Francisco was organized using the existing IPS, RDDP and IMSS
>> mailing lists.  I suggest consulting the archives for those
>> lists, particularly for the IPS list, where you should find a
>> reasonable level of community interest.
>>
>> There is definite community interest in this work, and I have
>> author commitments for drafts for all six work items listed
>> in the charter - each of the "First version of" milestone
>> dates in the proposed charter is based on discussion with an
>> author or authors who believe that a first version of the draft
>> will be ready by that date.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> --David
>> ----------------------------------------------------
>> David L. Black, Distinguished Engineer
>> EMC Corporation, 176 South St., Hopkinton, MA  01748
>> [phone]             FAX: [phone]
>> [e-mail]        Mobile: [phone]
>> ----------------------------------------------------
>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: Romascanu, Dan (Dan) [mailto:[e-mail]]
>>> Sent: Tuesday, April 28, 2009 6:33 AM
>>> To: Ersue, Mehmet (NSN - DE/Munich)
>>> Cc: Black, David
>>> Subject: RE: [OPS-DIR] FW: Internal WG Review: STORage
>>> Maintenance (storm)
>>>
>>> Mehmet,
>>>
>>> David Black ran the BOF in San Francisco. He should be able
>> to provide
>>> you information about the preparation work, level of support and
>>> interest from the community and initial drafts.
>>>
>>> Thanks for looking into this and for asking the questions.
>>>
>>> Dan
>>>
>>>
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: Ersue, Mehmet (NSN - DE/Munich)
>> [mailto:[e-mail]]
>>>> Sent: Tuesday, April 28, 2009 1:29 PM
>>>> To: Romascanu, Dan (Dan)
>>>> Subject: RE: [OPS-DIR] FW: Internal WG Review: STORage
>>>> Maintenance (storm)
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Hi Dan,
>>>>
>>>> I believe this is an important and necessary consolidation work.
>>>>
>>>> I might have missed the discussion on another maillist but
>>>> the storm maillist is pretty much new and I would have a
>>>> better feeling if there were some mail traffic showing the
>>>> interest of the community and/or an initial draft with an
>>>> issues list for the justification of a new WG.
>>>>
>>>> Cheers,
>>>> Mehmet
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>> From: [e-mail]
>>>>> [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of ext Romascanu,
>>>>> Dan (Dan)
>>>>> Sent: Monday, April 27, 2009 7:57 PM
>>>>> To: [e-mail]; [e-mail]
>>>>> Subject: [OPS-DIR] FW: Internal WG Review: STORage
>>>> Maintenance (storm)
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>> From: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]] On
>>>>> Behalf Of
>>>>> IESG Secretary
>>>>> Sent: Monday, April 27, 2009 8:54 PM
>>>>> To: [e-mail]; [e-mail]
>>>>> Cc: [e-mail]
>>>>> Subject: Internal WG Review: STORage Maintenance (storm)
>>>>>
>>>>> A new IETF working group is being considered in the Transport
>>>>> Area.  The
>>>>> draft charter for this working group is provided below for
>>>> your review
>>>>> and comment.
>>>>>
>>>>> Review time is one week.
>>>>>
>>>>> The IETF Secretariat
>>>>>
>>>>> STORage Maintenance (storm)
>>>>> ----------------------------------
>>>>>
>>>>> Last Modified: 2009-04-25
>>>>>
>>>>> Current Status: Proposed Working Group
>>>>>
>>>>> Chairs:
>>>>> - David L. Black <[e-mail]>
>>>>> - tbd
>>>>>
>>>>> Transport Area Director(s):
>>>>> - Magnus Westerlund <[e-mail]>
>>>>> - Lars Eggert <[e-mail]>
>>>>>
>>>>> Transport Area Advisor:
>>>>> - Lars Eggert <[e-mail]>
>>>>>
>>>>> Mailing Lists:
>>>>> General Discussion: [e-mail]
>>>>> To Subscribe: [e-mail]
>>>>> In Body: (un)subscribe
>>>>> Archive: http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/storm/index.html
>>>>>
>>>>> Description of Working Group:
>>>>>
>>>>> The IETF IPS (IP Storage) and RDDP (Remote Direct Data
>> Placement)
>>>>> working groups have produced a significant number of
>>>> storage protocols
>>>>> (e.g., iSCSI, iSER and FCIP) for which there is significant
>>>> usage. The
>>>>> time has come to reflect feedback from implementation and
>>> usage into
>>>>> updated RFCs; this work may include:
>>>>>
>>>>> - Implementation-driven revisions and updates to existing
>>> protocols
>>>>> (i.e., updated RFCs that match the "running code").
>>>>>
>>>>> - Interoperability reports as needed for the resulting
>>>>> revised protocols
>>>>> that are appropriate for Draft Standard RFC status.
>>>>>
>>>>> - Minor protocol changes or additions. Backwards
>> compatibility is
>>>>> required.
>>>>>
>>>>> Significant changes to the existing protocol standards are
>>>>> out of scope,
>>>>> including any work on version 2 of any of these protocols.
>>>>>
>>>>> Stability is critical to the usage of these protocols, so
>>> backwards
>>>>> compatibility with existing implementations will be a
>> requirement
>>>>> imposed on for all protocol changes and additions. Note
>>>> that this is a
>>>>> requirement for implementation compatibility - if it is the
>>>> case that
>>>>> all implementations of a protocol have done something
>>> different than
>>>>> what the RFC specifies, it is appropriate for a new RFC to
>>>>> document what
>>>>> the "running code" actually does and deprecate the
>> unused original
>>>>> behavior.
>>>>>
>>>>> Initial list of work items:
>>>>>
>>>>> (1) iSCSI: Combine RFCs 3720 (iSCSI), 3980 (NAA names),
>> 4850 (node
>>>>> architecture key) and 5048 (corrections/clarifications)
>>>> into one draft
>>>>> (3720bis), removing features that are not implemented in
>>>>> practice. This
>>>>> draft should be prepared so that it could become a Draft
>>>> Standard RFC,
>>>>> but it is up to the to decide whether to advance it to
>>>> Draft Standard.
>>>>>
>>>>> (2) iSCSI: Add features to support SAM-4 (4th version
>> of the SCSI
>>>>> architecture) in a backwards-compatible fashion, as iSCSI
>>>> is currently
>>>>> based on SAM-2. This will be a separate draft from the
>>>> iSCSI update in
>>>>> the previous bullet. The Working group may add additional
>>>> minor useful
>>>>> iSCSI features to this draft.
>>>>>
>>>>> (3) FCIP: IP Protocol number 133 was allocated to a
>>> precursor of the
>>>>> FCIP protocol in 2000, but this allocated number is not
>>>> used by FCIP.
>>>>> The working group will consider whether this allocated number
>>>>> should be
>>>>> returned to IANA for future reallocation.
>>>>>
>>>>> (4) iFCP: The Address Translation mode of iFCP needs to be
>>>> deprecated
>>>>> (SHOULD NOT implement or use), as there are significant
>> technical
>>>>> problems with its specification, and moreover, only the Address
>>>>> Transparent mode of iFCP is in use. This will be done via a
>>>>> short draft
>>>>> that updates RFC 4172, and not via a complete rewrite of
>>> RFC 4172. A
>>>>> combined draft is expected that encompasses items (3) and (4).
>>>>>
>>>>> (5) RDDP MPA: Good support for MPI applications requires a
>>>>> small update
>>>>> to the startup functionality to allow either end of the
>>>> connection to
>>>>> initiate.
>>>>>
>>>>> (6) iSER: Experience with Infiniband implementations suggest
>>>>> a few minor
>>>>> updates to reflect what has been done in practice.
>>>>>
>>>>> The working group is expected to maintain good working
>>> relationships
>>>>> with INCITS Technical Committee T10 (SCSI standards) and INCITS
>>>>> Technical Committee T11 (Fibre Channel standards) via
>> overlaps in
>>>>> membership as opposed to appointment of formal liaisons.
>>> The liaison
>>>>> process (including IAB appointment of a liaison or
>>>>> liaisons) remains available for use if needed.
>>>>>
>>>>> Goals and Milestones:
>>>>>
>>>>> June 2009 First version of FCIP protocol number and iFCP Address
>>>>> Translation mode draft
>>>>>
>>>>> July 2009 First version of iSCSI SAM-4 (and other) new
>>>> features draft.
>>>>>
>>>>> Aug 2009 First version of RDDP MPA startup change draft
>>>>>
>>>>> Sep 2009 Working Group Last Call on FCIP protocol
>> number and iFCP
>>>>> address change draft
>>>>>
>>>>> Sep 2009 First version of combined iSCSI draft (3720bis)
>>>>>
>>>>> Oct 2009 First version of iSER update draft
>>>>>
>>>>> Oct 2009 Working Group Last Call on RDDP MPA startup
>> change draft.
>>>>>
>>>>> Dec 2009 Functionally complete iSCSI SAM-4 (and other)
>>> new features
>>>>> draft.
>>>>>
>>>>> Feb 2010 Working Group Last Call on iSER update draft
>>>>>
>>>>> March 2010 Working Group Last Call on iSCSI SAM-4 (and
>> other) new
>>>>> features draft.
>>>>>
>>>>> April 2010 Working Group decision on whether to seek Draft
>>>>> Standard RFC
>>>>> status for the combined iSCSI draft (3720bis). [Note:
>>>>> decision may be made significantly before this date.]
>>>>>
>>>>> Sep 2010 Working Group Last Call on combined iSCSI
>> draft (3720bis)
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> OPS-DIR mailing list
>>>>> [e-mail]
>>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ops-dir
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>