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

["Ersue, Mehmet (NSN - DE/Munich)" <[e-mail]>]

Lars Eggert wrote:
> 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.

I can imagine core members of imss, rddp and ips always support 
storage related topics. 
I was wondering whether there was any invitation to the ietf-discussion 
prior to the BoF to motivate people to reactivate their subscription for

RDDP, IPS and IMSS lists to discuss Storm issues? A separate maillist 
would be probably more effective.

I'm not against a WG, I'm just saying that there is not sufficient
positive 
feedback from the IETF community _on a maillist_ yet.

IMO IESG should measure the acceptance of Storm based on the feedback 
of the broader IETF community based on a maillist discussion.
The count of Storm-related mails I can see on the official BoF list
(ips) 
before the BoF session is not overwhelming.
 
> > 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
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> 
>