[imss] IMSS Meeting Minutes, IETF 61

Here are the minutes from the IMSS working group from D.C.
Let me know of any corrections or clarifications.

Thanks,
Elizabeth

---
The IMSS Working Group met on Tuesday, November 9, 2004 at 14:15 (2:15 pm)
at the IETF-61 in Washington D.C.

The following agenda was presented:

Agenda:
2:15: Administrativa (Elizabeth Rodriguez)
2:25: Liaison Report from T11.5 (Roger Cummings)
2:35: New working group drafts: (Keith McCloghrie) 
      Fibre Channel Name Server MIB:
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-imss-fc-nsm-mib-00.txt
<http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-imss-fc-nsm-mib-00.txt> 
      Fibre Channel Fabric Address Manager MIB:
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-imss-fc-fam-mib-00.txt
<http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-imss-fc-fam-mib-00.txt>
(formerly Domain Mgr MIB)
2:50: New proposed work item: (Claudio DeSanti)
      IPv4 over Fibre Channel:
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-desanti-imss-ipv4-over-fibre-chann
el-00.txt
<http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-desanti-imss-ipv4-over-fibre-chan
nel-00.txt> 
      This draft is a proposed draft that the authors believe should either
update or replace RFC 2625.  It includes details of differences between RFC
2625 and the I-D.
3:05: Discussion of proposed new work items. (Roger Cummings)
      INCITS T11.5 would like to propose new work for the IMSS working group
to consider.
      FSPF (Fibre Shortest Path First) MIB 
      Routing Information MIB (routing protocol independent)
      No drafts currently available.
3:--: Open Mike (time permitting)
3:15: Meeting Concludes

Adminstrativa included a greeting, noting that the "note well' statement
applies.
Elizabeth indicated that the IMSS WG has a very close relationship with the
INCITS T11 organization, and T11.5 in particular. 
T11.5 is a task group within the INCITS T11 Technical committee. 
In general, the work performed in this working group is a joint effort
between T11 and IMSS, with each group providing particular expertise for the
drafts -- T11 addresses FC specific criteria and IETF provides the MIB and
IP expertise.

--
Roger Cummings then presented the T11.5 Status for IMSS.
Roger is the T11.5 liaison to the IMSS working group.  

Two drafts have been submitted from T11.5 and accepted as working group
items:
draft-ietf-imss-fc-fam-mib-00.txt and
draft-ietf-imss-fc-nsm-mib-00.txt

The presentation 04-740v0.pdf has details on how to access the T11.5
information on those drafts, including various URLs.

Roger then presented preliminary information on two drafts that T11.5 is
working on.  These drafts are the 
Routing Information MIB (SM-RTM) and Fibre Shortest Path First (FSPF)
(SM-FSM)
No formal drafts exist yet.  T11.5 is targeting July, 2005 for submitting
these drafts to IMSS for consideration as official working group items.

Roger then mentioned two other items that T11.5 may undertake, which also
will likely be presented to IMSS for consideration as working group items.
The first is a MIB to address Virtual Fabrics and the second addresses
Fabric Routing.  

Roger discussed the IANA registry created for Fibre Channel Port Types.
Roger has been designated the expert reviewer for this registry.

Elizabeth suggested it would be beneficial to post the T11.5 SD-3 (proposal
documents) that are expected to eventually be submitted to IMSS on the IMSS
reflector or as individual submissions to IMSS, so that IMSS has a heads up
on what T11.5 is planning on working on and what their contents will cover.
--
Next Keith McCloghrie presented more information on the first two MIBs that
have been submitted to the IMSS working group as official working group
items -- draft-ietf-imss-fc-fam-mib-00.txt and
draft-ietf-imss-fc-nsm-mib-00.txt mentioned before.
He began with a brief history of FC MIBs that have been worked on in the
past.
The first FC MIB was the FC entity MIB, RFC 2837.  Next was the Fibre
Alliance MIB that was submitted to the IETF, eventually withdrawn.
T11 did publish this draft eventually as MIB-FA, but only as informational,
not a standard.

IP Storage then defined the FC MGMT MIB, which merged the above two MIBs.
This draft has completed IETF Last Call and been approved by the IESG.
Elizabeth pointed out that one of the issues that came out of this work is
that some people felt that T11 did not have enough say in this document,
even though individuals did participate in the development.  This is one of
the reasons for the joint work that T11 and IMSS are doing now, so that both
organizations have an opportunity to "bless" the document.

When an outline for 9 new MIBs were presented to the IPS WG for
consideration as working group items, it was decided that instead we would
develop a process by which the drafts would be worked on first in the T11.5
working group to insure conformance with T11 FC standards.  The MIBs would
then be transferred to IMSS.  This working group will insure that they
conform to SMIv2 and consistency with other MIBS.  The drafts would not
become T11 standards, only IETF standards.  

Keith presented more information on the draft-ietf-imss-fc-fam-mib-00.txt
and draft-ietf-imss-fc-nsm-mib.00.txt.  See the presentation for more
details.
FAM contains two MIB modules: T11-TC-MIB and T11-FC-FABRIC-ADDR-MGR-MIB.
T11-TC-MIB module contains only FabricIndex.  For current FC specks, this
value always 1, but added for future proofing -- corresponding to new work
in FC-SW-4.
Tables indexed by FC Mgmt Instance (FC Mgmt MIB), switch index and fabric
index.
Contains 5 tables and three notifications.

NSM contains 1 MIB module: T11-FC-NAME-SERVER-MIB, 5 tables and 1
notification.  Indexed by Management Instance (FC mgmt MIB) and subset
index.

Confirmation requested that the IMSS working group does want to work on
these drafts.  Consensus.
Next step is to have discussion on IMSS mailing list to see if there any
changes or updates required for the FAM and NSM MIBs.  
One point was bought up that there were some items in a previous T11 version
of the draft that were removed due to no corresponding standard in T11
containing the information.  This has changed, and as such, the possibility
of making changes to the MIB corresponding to these new additions to the T11
standards should be considered, since these changes would likely otherwise
result in this MIB requiring a revision later.

Once changes have been considered and, if necessary, made, conducting a WG
last call, potentially in January or February, for these drafts will be
considered. 

One thing that T11 needs to figure out is if a process needs to be developed
for T11 to take some kind of vote confirming changed made in the IETF,
probably in the same timeframe that IETF is conducting WG last call.
--
Next Claudio DeSanti presented IPv4 and ARP over Fibre Channel.
Prior to Claudio making the presentation, Elizabeth gave a little bit of
background.
Specifically, the first WG item undertaken by IMSS was IPv6 over FC, which
became RFC 3831. 
RFC 3831 targeted IPv6 only, since RFC 2625 addressed IPv4 over FC.
The intent had been to take RFC 2625 to proposed standard, but it was
determined by several people interested in advancing RFC 2625 that this was
not feasible.  So, in T11 task group T11.3, new work was undertaken to
develop a draft to fix the issues from RFC 2625.

An IPv4 over FC draft has been submitted for consideration by this working
group as draft-desanti-imss-ipv4-over-fibre-channel-00.txt.
This draft is targeted to replace (obsolete) RFC 2625.One question needs to
be addressed is what is the appropriate process for performing this work,
since we have an RFC that addresses IPv4 over FC and another that addresses
IPv6 over FC, and typically all new work is supposed to cover both IPv4 and
IPv6.  Should the new draft also replace RFC 3831?

Some issues with RFC 2625:
N_Port_Name format restriction to using only NAA=1, and requiring use of
FARP.  NAA is an address format used by FC, and NAA=1 is a 48 bit MAC like
address format.  FARP is a Fibre Channel ARP format defined in 2625, but
that has major problems.  Many vendors did not implement ARP.  Some disk
vendors do/did not tolerate receiving FARPs and could cause errors,
including errors for an unrelated device on the network.

Consensus in T11 that RFC 2625 should be replaced with this new work.  Also
makes sense to create a unified document replacing both RFC 2625 and 3831.
The new document would be 100% backward compatible with 3831, since the new
draft is based on 3831.

Question asked regarding FARP -- will the new draft prohibit FARP - Response
no; would not prohibit, but would not require.

Confusion over the term exchange.  In this context of this discussion,
exchange refers to Fibre Channel Exchange, not exchange of  IP packets.

The combined document would have no technical changes to the IPv6 over FC
component of the draft.
New draft would have changes to the IPv4 component -- namely all commonly
used Name Identifier formats (NAA) are supported; ARP simplified, FARP not
required.  Missing functionality such as IPv4 Multicast support added.

Bert does not see a problem in replacing both RFC 2625 and RFC 3831, but
need to consult with Margaret Wasserman, since this is not his area of
expertise.  David Black expressed the opinion that he feels this is the
right idea.

Elizabeth needs to follow up with Margaret to confirm she is OK with this.
Send to Margaret Claudio's slides.  Needs to be discussed with the IESG.  

Consensus call:  Does anyone object to this becoming a new working group
item, pending approval by the IESG. -- No objection.
Is there any interest in working in this group to work on this draft.
Consensus yes.

First official IMSS draft will be combined draft.

Discussion of SM-FSM and SM-RTM, briefly touched on at the beginning of the
meeting.  Elizabeth emphasized that the work on these drafts needs to be
crossposted to both T11.5 and IMSS mailing lists.  The drafts themselves
should be submitted to both organizations.
No further discussion.
Meeting concluded.

_______________________________________________
imss mailing list
imss@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/imss