Re: [Ips] Storage Maintenance (storm) BOF reminder & requests

["Uri Elzur" <[e-mail]>]

Hi David

Unfortunately I won't be able to make it in person to the meeting this week. However, I'd like to extend our support to the following items:

- iSCSI: Add backwards-compatible features to support SAM-4.
- RDDP MPA: Small startup update for MPI application support.

I think that a virtual WG should be formed that plans to do its
work primarily via the mailing list.  This will give us an opportunity to flush out the issues and have a better assessment of the priorities and effort associated with the activities. At that point, we can decide if/when to go into formal WG

thx

Uri  ("Oo-ree") 
W: 949-926-6432 
C:  949-292-6098 


-----Original Message-----
From: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of [e-mail]
Sent: Wednesday, March 11, 2009 4:28 PM
To: [e-mail]; [e-mail]
Cc: [e-mail]; [e-mail]
Subject: [Ips] 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
[phone]             FAX: [phone]
[e-mail]        Mobile: [phone]
----------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
Ips mailing list
[e-mail]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ips