Re: [Ips] iSER Publication Requested

[Mike Ko <[e-mail]>]

Please note that the Verbs document referenced in the iSER draft refers to 
the version available at the RDMA Consortium website and not the expired 
version at IETF.  The RDMA Consortium version, titled 
"draft-hilland-iwarp-verbs-v1.0-RDMAC" as specified in section 13.2 of the 
iSER draft, is available at www.rdmaconsortium.org.

Mike
Sent by:        [e-mail]
To:     [e-mail]
cc:     [e-mail] 
Subject:        [Ips] iSER Publication Requested


Publication as an RFC has just been requested on the iSER draft.
The PROTO process (cf. draft-ietf-proto-wgchair-doc-shepherding-05.txt)
is being used.  Here is the PROTO writeup:

             iSCSI Extensions for RDMA Specification 
                    draft-ietf-ips-iser-05.txt

Requested Publication Status: Proposed Standard
PROTO shepherd: David L. Black (IPS WG Chair)
------------------------------------------------------------------------

   1.a) Have the chairs personally reviewed this version of the Internet
        Draft (ID), and in particular, do they believe this ID is ready
        to forward to the IESG for publication?

Yes.

   1.b) Has the document had adequate review from both key WG members
        and key non-WG members?

Yes.

        Do you have any concerns about the
        depth or breadth of the reviews that have been performed?

No.

   1.c) Do you have concerns that the document needs more review from a
        particular (broader) perspective (e.g., security, operational
        complexity, someone familiar with AAA, etc.)?

The Security Considerations includes a brief discussion of iSER usage
on non-IP networks.  This discussion (Section 11, p.78) should be fine,
but the Security Area should double-check it.

   1.d) Do you have any specific concerns/issues with this document that
        you believe the ADs and/or IESG should be aware of?  For
        example, perhaps you are uncomfortable with certain parts of the
        document, or have concerns whether there really is a need for
        it.  In any event, if your issues have been discussed in the WG
        and the WG has indicated it that it still wishes to advance the
        document, detail those concerns in the write-up.

No.

   1.e) How solid is the WG consensus behind this document? Does it
        represent the strong concurrence of a few individuals, with
        others being silent, or does the WG as a whole understand and
        agree with it?

The portion of the WG interested in RDMA understands and agrees with
this document.

   1.f) [... not sent to the WG ...]

   1.g) Have the chairs verified that the document adheres to all of the
        ID nits? (see http://www.ietf.org/ID-Checklist.html).

The online checker says everything is fine.

   1.h) Is the document split into normative and informative references?

Yes.

        Are there normative references to IDs, where the IDs are not
        also ready for advancement or are otherwise in an unclear state?
        (note here that the RFC editor will not publish an RFC with
        normative references to IDs, it will delay publication until all
        such IDs are also ready for publication as RFCs.)

There are three normative references to RDDP WG drafts:
                 - draft-ietf-rddp-rdmap
                 - draft-ietf-rddp-ddp
                 - draft-ietf-rddp-mpa
Publication has been requested for all three of these drafts.

There is an informative reference to an expired VERBS draft:
                 - draft-hilland-iwarp-verbs
This reference is not cited in the body of this (iSER) draft.
That VERBS draft has expired and will not be published as an RFC.
An RFC Editor Note should be used to remove this reference.

   1.i) For Standards Track and BCP documents, the IESG approval
        announcement includes a write-up section with the following
        sections:

        *    Technical Summary

        *    Working Group Summary

        *    Protocol Quality

   1.j) Please provide such a write-up.  Recent examples can be found in
        the "protocol action" announcements for approved documents.

-- Technical Summary
 
   iSCSI Extensions for RDMA provides the RDMA data transfer capability 
   to iSCSI by layering iSCSI on top of an RDMA-Capable Protocol such 
   as the iWARP protocol suite.  An RDMA-Capable Protocol provides RDMA 
   Read and Write services, which enable data to be transferred 
   directly into SCSI I/O Buffers without intermediate data copies. 
   This document describes the extensions to the iSCSI protocol to 
   support RDMA services as provided by an RDMA-Capable Protocol such 
   as the iWARP protocol suite. 

-- Working Group Summary

   Interest in using iSER to support iSCSI on non-IP networks has
   been accommodated by a careful revision of terminology, including a
   WG last call on the revised terminology.  Any actual protocol
   specification work for non-IP networks (e.g., for InfiniBand) will
   be conducted outside the IETF (e.g., in the InfiniBand Trade
   Association).

-- Protocol Quality

This protocol has been reviewed for the IPS WG by David L. Black.

----------------------------------------------------
David L. Black, Senior Technologist
EMC Corporation, 176 South St., Hopkinton, MA  01748
[phone]             FAX: [phone]
[e-mail]        Mobile: [phone]
----------------------------------------------------


_______________________________________________
Ips mailing list
[e-mail]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ips



_______________________________________________
Ips mailing list
[e-mail]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ips