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

David,

Yes, something needs to be done to make this happen, thanks
for the reminder.

T10 meets next week - I'll need to talk to the responsible people
next week in order to figure out how to go about this, as the
rules that cause this inaccessibility were imposed on T10 from
above by INCITS.

I will have a solution to this problem before the IESG is asked
to approve the storm WG charter.

Thanks,
--David

> -----Original Message-----
> From: ops-dir-bounces@ietf.org 
> [mailto:ops-dir-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of David Harrington
> Sent: Thursday, April 30, 2009 8:02 AM
> To: 'Romascanu, Dan (Dan)'; aaa-doctors@ietf.org; ops-dir@ietf.org
> Cc: 'IAB'; iesg@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [OPS-DIR] FW: Internal WG Review: STORage 
> Maintenance (storm)
> 
> 
>  Hi,
> 
> SAM-4 compatibility is an explicit goal of the charter.
> The T10 website says "Only T10 members are permitted to access this
> document"
> 
> Will the SAM-4 documents be made freely available to
> members/participants of the STORM WG?
> 
> dbh
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: ops-dir-bounces@ietf.org 
> > [mailto:ops-dir-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Romascanu, Dan (Dan)
> > Sent: Monday, April 27, 2009 1:57 PM
> > To: aaa-doctors@ietf.org; ops-dir@ietf.org
> > Subject: [OPS-DIR] FW: Internal WG Review: STORage Maintenance
> (storm)
> > 
> >  
> > 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: iesg-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:iesg-bounces@ietf.org] On 
> > Behalf Of
> > IESG Secretary
> > Sent: Monday, April 27, 2009 8:54 PM
> > To: iesg@ietf.org; iab@iab.org
> > Cc: black_david@emc.com
> > 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 <black_david@emc.com>
> > - tbd
> > 
> > Transport Area Director(s):
> > - Magnus Westerlund <magnus.westerlund@ericsson.com>
> > - Lars Eggert <lars.eggert@nokia.com>
> > 
> > Transport Area Advisor:
> > - Lars Eggert <lars.eggert@nokia.com>
> > 
> > Mailing Lists:
> > General Discussion: storm@ietf.org
> > To Subscribe: storm-request@ietf.org
> > 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
> > OPS-DIR@ietf.org
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ops-dir
> > 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> OPS-DIR mailing list
> OPS-DIR@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ops-dir
> 
> 