[imss] Storage Maintenance (storm) BOF reminder & requests
Black_David@emc.com Wed, 11 March 2009 23:27 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 AF50C3A6957; Wed, 11 Mar 2009 16:27:47 -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 w8sXj7WzMrQI; Wed, 11 Mar 2009 16:27:46 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mexforward.lss.emc.com (mexforward.lss.emc.com [128.222.32.20]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 851173A67DB; Wed, 11 Mar 2009 16:27:46 -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 n2BNSLku025577 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Wed, 11 Mar 2009 19:28:21 -0400 (EDT)
From: Black_David@emc.com
Received: from mailhub.lss.emc.com (numailhub.lss.emc.com [10.254.144.16]) by hop04-l1d11-si04.isus.emc.com (Tablus Interceptor); Wed, 11 Mar 2009 19:28:13 -0400
Received: from corpussmtp3.corp.emc.com (corpussmtp3.corp.emc.com [10.254.64.53]) by mailhub.lss.emc.com (Switch-3.3.2/Switch-3.3.2) with ESMTP id n2BNS4ME010538; Wed, 11 Mar 2009 19:28:13 -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 19:28:11 -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 19:28:10 -0400
Message-ID: <9FA859626025B64FBC2AF149D97C944A01F736BA@CORPUSMX80A.corp.emc.com>
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
Thread-Topic: Storage Maintenance (storm) BOF reminder & requests
Thread-Index: AcmioQqSkUT1te6rS+uCXVPIvobxAQ==
X-Priority: 1
Priority: Urgent
Importance: high
To: ips@ietf.org, rddp@ietf.org
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 11 Mar 2009 23:28:11.0514 (UTC) FILETIME=[0B05E5A0:01C9A2A1]
X-EMM-EM: Active
Cc: imss@ietf.org, Black_David@emc.com
Subject: [imss] Storage Maintenance (storm) BOF reminder & requests
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 23:27:47 -0000
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 ----------------------------------------------------
- [imss] Storage Maintenance (storm) BOF reminder &… Black_David
- [imss] STORM BOF time Black_David
- Re: [imss] [rddp] Storage Maintenance (storm) BOF… Stephen Bailey
- Re: [imss] [Ips] Storage Maintenance (storm) BOF … Lars Eggert
- Re: [imss] [Ips] Storage Maintenance (storm) BOF … Knight, Frederick
- Re: [imss] [Ips] Storage Maintenance (storm) BOF … Mallikarjun C.
- Re: [imss] [Ips] Storage Maintenance (storm) BOF … Robert D. Russell
- Re: [imss] [Junk released by Allow List] Re: [rdd… Felix Marti
- Re: [imss] [rddp] [Junk released by Allow List] R… Mikkel Hagen
- Re: [imss] [rddp] [Ips] Storage Maintenance (stor… Bernard Metzler
- Re: [imss] Storage Maintenance (storm) BOF remind… Uri Elzur