[imss] STORM BOF time

Black_David@emc.com Wed, 11 March 2009 23:34 UTC

Return-Path: <Black_David@emc.com>
X-Original-To: imss@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: imss@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E9C3F3A67DB; Wed, 11 Mar 2009 16:34:17 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id q8gVjKR-eWqv; Wed, 11 Mar 2009 16:34:16 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mexforward.lss.emc.com (mexforward.lss.emc.com [128.222.32.20]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A9AA63A67D4; Wed, 11 Mar 2009 16:34:16 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from hop04-l1d11-si04.isus.emc.com (HOP04-L1D11-SI04.isus.emc.com [10.254.111.24]) by mexforward.lss.emc.com (Switch-3.2.5/Switch-3.1.7) with ESMTP id n2BNYqTH001631 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Wed, 11 Mar 2009 19:34:52 -0400 (EDT)
From: Black_David@emc.com
Received: from mailhub.lss.emc.com (numailhub.lss.emc.com [10.254.144.15]) by hop04-l1d11-si04.isus.emc.com (Tablus Interceptor); Wed, 11 Mar 2009 19:34:49 -0400
Received: from corpussmtp3.corp.emc.com (corpussmtp3.corp.emc.com [10.254.64.53]) by mailhub.lss.emc.com (Switch-3.3.2mp/Switch-3.3.2mp) with ESMTP id n2BNYmRu016234; Wed, 11 Mar 2009 19:34:48 -0400
Received: from CORPUSMX80A.corp.emc.com ([10.254.89.202]) by corpussmtp3.corp.emc.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Wed, 11 Mar 2009 19:34:47 -0400
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5
Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Date: Wed, 11 Mar 2009 19:34:47 -0400
Message-ID: <9FA859626025B64FBC2AF149D97C944A01F736BF@CORPUSMX80A.corp.emc.com>
In-reply-to: <9FA859626025B64FBC2AF149D97C944A01F736BA@CORPUSMX80A.corp.emc.com>
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
Thread-Topic: STORM BOF time
Thread-Index: AcmioQqSkUT1te6rS+uCXVPIvobxAQAALMaQ
X-Priority: 1
Priority: Urgent
Importance: high
References: <9FA859626025B64FBC2AF149D97C944A01F736BA@CORPUSMX80A.corp.emc.com>
To: <ips@ietf.org>, <rddp@ietf.org>
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 11 Mar 2009 23:34:47.0891 (UTC) FILETIME=[F7483A30:01C9A2A1]
X-EMM-EM: Active
Cc: imss@ietf.org, Black_David@emc.com
Subject: [imss] STORM BOF time
X-BeenThere: imss@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: Internet and Management Support for Storage Working Group <imss.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/imss>, <mailto:imss-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/imss>
List-Post: <mailto:imss@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:imss-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/imss>, <mailto:imss-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 11 Mar 2009 23:34:18 -0000

I put everything in there except the meeting time.  Try this:

THURSDAY, March 26, 2009 *** 0900-1130 Morning Session I ***
Continental 1&2  	TSV  	storm  	 Storage Maintenance BOF

Sorry,
--David
 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Black, David 
> Sent: Wednesday, March 11, 2009 7:28 PM
> To: ips@ietf.org; rddp@ietf.org
> Cc: imss@ietf.org; Black, David
> Subject: Storage Maintenance (storm) BOF reminder & requests
> Importance: High
> 
> This is a reminder that the Storage Maintenance BOF will
> be held in about 2 weeks at the IETF meetings in San Francisco.
> Please plan to attend if you're interested:
> 
> THURSDAY, March 26, 2009
> Continental 1&2  	TSV  	storm  	 Storage Maintenance BOF
> 
> The BOF description is at:
> http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ips/current/msg02669.html
> 
> The initial agenda is here:
> http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ips/current/msg02670.html
> 
> I'm going to go upload that initial agenda as the BOF agenda,
> and it can be bashed at the meeting.
> 
> The primary purpose of this BOF is to answer two questions:
> (1) What storage maintenance work (IP Storage, Remote Direct
> 	Data Placement) should be done?
> (2) Should an IETF Working Group be formed to undertake that
> 	work?
> 
> Everyone gets to weigh in on these decisions, even those who
> can't attend the BOF meeting.  Anyone who thinks that there is
> work that should be done, and who cannot come to the BOF meeting
> should say so on the IPS or RDDP mailing lists (and it'd be a
> good idea for those who can come to do this).  As part of the
> email, please indicate how you're interested in helping (author
> or co-author of specific drafts, promise to review and comment
> on specific drafts).
> 
> Here's a summary of the initial draft list of work items:
> - iSCSI: Combine RFCs into one document, removing unused features.
> - iSCSI: Interoperability report on what has been implemented and
> 	interoperates in support of Draft Standard status for iSCSI.
> - iSCSI: Add backwards-compatible features to support SAM-4.
> - iFCP: The Address Translation mode of iFCP needs to be deprecated.
> - RDDP MPA: Small startup update for MPI application support.
> - iSER: A few minor updates based on InfiniBand experience.
> 
> Additional work (e.g., updated/improved iSNS for iSCSI, MIB changes,
> updated ipsec security profile [i.e., IKEv2-based]) is possible if
> there's interest.
> 
> There are (at least) four possible outcomes:
> (A) None of this work needs to be done.
> (B) There are some small work items that make sense.  Individual
> 	drafts with a draft shepherd (i.e., David Black) will
> 	suffice.
> (C) A working group is needed to undertake more complex work
> 	items and reach consensus on design issues.  The WG can
> 	be "virtual" and operate mostly via the mailing list
> 	until/unless controversial/contentious issues arise.
> (D) There is a lot of complex work that is needed, and a WG
> 	that will plan to meet at every IETF meeting should be
> 	formed.
> 
> Please note that the IETF "rough consensus" process requires a
> working group in practice to be effective.  This makes outcome
> (C) look attractive to me, as:
> - I'm coming under increasing pressure to limit travel, and
> 	the next two IETF meetings after San Francisco are not
> 	in the US.
> - I'd rather have the "rough consensus" process available and
> 	not need it than need it and not have it available.
> 
> Setting an example for how to express interest ...
> 
> ---------------
> I think that the iSCSI single RFC and interoperability report are
> good ideas, but I want to see a bunch of people expressing interest
> in these, as significant effort is involved.  It might make sense
> to do the single iSCSI RFC but put off the interoperability report
> (the resulting RFC would remain at Proposed Standard rather than
> going to Draft Standard), as I'm not hearing about major iSCSI
> interoperability issues.
> 
> I think the latter four items (SAM-4 for iSCSI, deprecate iFCP
> address translation, MPI fix to MPA and iSER fixes) should all
> be done.
> 
> I plan to author the iFCP address translation deprecation draft,
> and review all other drafts.
> 
> I think that a virtual WG should be formed that plans to do its
> work primarily via the mailing list.  I believe the SAM-4 work
> by itself is complex enough to need a working group - I would
> expect design issues to turn up at least there and in determining
> whether to remove certain iSCSI features, but I'm cautiously
> optimistic that the mailing list is sufficient to work these
> issues out (and concerned that travel restrictions are likely to
> force use of the mailing list).
> 
> -----------------
> 
> Ok, who wants to go next?
> 
> Thanks,
> --David
> ----------------------------------------------------
> David L. Black, Distinguished Engineer
> EMC Corporation, 176 South St., Hopkinton, MA  01748
> +1 (508) 293-7953             FAX: +1 (508) 293-7786
> black_david@emc.com        Mobile: +1 (978) 394-7754
> ----------------------------------------------------
>