[Ips] iSER Publication Requested
Black_David@emc.com Fri, 21 October 2005 16:21 UTC
Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1ESzdx-00020U-NI; Fri, 21 Oct 2005 12:21:21 -0400
Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1ESzdw-000202-6D for ips@megatron.ietf.org; Fri, 21 Oct 2005 12:21:20 -0400
Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA16769 for <ips@ietf.org>; Fri, 21 Oct 2005 12:21:08 -0400 (EDT)
From: Black_David@emc.com
Received: from mailhub.lss.emc.com ([168.159.2.31]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1ESzq6-0004TH-RE for ips@ietf.org; Fri, 21 Oct 2005 12:33:55 -0400
Received: from mxic2.corp.emc.com (mxic2.corp.emc.com [128.221.12.9]) by mailhub.lss.emc.com (Switch-3.1.6/Switch-3.1.6) with ESMTP id j9LGKnXW029833 for <ips@ietf.org>; Fri, 21 Oct 2005 12:21:12 -0400 (EDT)
Received: by mxic2.corp.emc.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id <RT6B42MC>; Fri, 21 Oct 2005 12:20:12 -0400
Message-ID: <F222151D3323874393F83102D614E0557A70AA@CORPUSMX20A.corp.emc.com>
To: ips@ietf.org
Date: Fri, 21 Oct 2005 12:20:07 -0400
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19)
Content-Type: text/plain
X-PMX-Version: 4.7.1.128075, Antispam-Engine: 2.1.0.0, Antispam-Data: 2005.10.21.14
X-PerlMx-Spam: Gauge=, SPAM=0%, Reasons='EMC_BODY_1+ -5, EMC_FROM_00+ -3, NO_REAL_NAME 0, __C230066_P5 0, __CT 0, __CT_TEXT_PLAIN 0, __HAS_MSGID 0, __HAS_X_MAILER 0, __IMS_MSGID 0, __IMS_MUA 0, __MIME_TEXT_ONLY 0, __MIME_VERSION 0, __SANE_MSGID 0, __STOCK_CRUFT 0'
X-Spam-Score: 0.3 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: 6ffdee8af20de249c24731d8414917d3
Cc: Black_David@emc.com
Subject: [Ips] iSER Publication Requested
X-BeenThere: ips@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: IP Storage <ips.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ips>, <mailto:ips-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:ips@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ips-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ips>, <mailto:ips-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Sender: ips-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: ips-bounces@ietf.org
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 +1 (508) 293-7953 FAX: +1 (508) 293-7786 black_david@emc.com Mobile: +1 (978) 394-7754 ---------------------------------------------------- _______________________________________________ Ips mailing list Ips@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ips
- [Ips] iSER Publication Requested Black_David
- Re: [Ips] iSER Publication Requested Mike Ko