[Ips] Publication Requested: iSCSI Node Architecture Key
Black_David@emc.com Thu, 12 October 2006 18:55 UTC
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1GY5iU-0005m3-6d; Thu, 12 Oct 2006 14:55:38 -0400
Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1GY5iS-0005ly-Mf for ips@ietf.org; Thu, 12 Oct 2006 14:55:36 -0400
Received: from mexforward.lss.emc.com ([128.222.32.20]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1GY5iR-0005YS-Ag for ips@ietf.org; Thu, 12 Oct 2006 14:55:36 -0400
Received: from mailhub.lss.emc.com (sesha.lss.emc.com [10.254.144.12]) by mexforward.lss.emc.com (Switch-3.1.8/Switch-3.1.7) with ESMTP id k9CItYBI015726 for <ips@ietf.org>; Thu, 12 Oct 2006 14:55:35 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from corpussmtp3.corp.emc.com (corpussmtp3.corp.emc.com [10.254.64.53]) by mailhub.lss.emc.com (Switch-3.1.8/Switch-3.1.7) with ESMTP id k9CIt87b002363 for <ips@ietf.org>; Thu, 12 Oct 2006 14:55:33 -0400 (EDT)
From: Black_David@emc.com
Received: from CORPUSMX20A.corp.emc.com ([128.221.62.13]) by corpussmtp3.corp.emc.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.0); Thu, 12 Oct 2006 14:55:31 -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: Thu, 12 Oct 2006 14:55:44 -0400
Message-ID: <F222151D3323874393F83102D614E05502B67513@CORPUSMX20A.corp.emc.com>
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
Thread-Topic: Publication Requested: iSCSI Node Architecture Key
Thread-Index: AcbuL/21tfOEJvExQAG/k2ajx9O7CQ==
To: ips@ietf.org
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 12 Oct 2006 18:55:31.0999 (UTC) FILETIME=[FE1042F0:01C6EE2F]
X-PMX-Version: 4.7.1.128075, Antispam-Engine: 2.4.0.264935, Antispam-Data: 2006.10.12.111443
X-PerlMx-Spam: Gauge=, SPAM=0%, Reason='EMC_BODY_1+ -3, EMC_FROM_0+ -2, NO_REAL_NAME 0, __C230066_P5 0, __CP_URI_IN_BODY 0, __CT 0, __CTE 0, __CTYPE_CHARSET_QUOTED 0, __CT_TEXT_PLAIN 0, __HAS_MSGID 0, __IMS_MSGID 0, __MIME_TEXT_ONLY 0, __MIME_VERSION 0, __SANE_MSGID 0'
X-Spam-Score: 0.2 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: 200d029292fbb60d25b263122ced50fc
Cc: Black_David@emc.com
Subject: [Ips] Publication Requested: iSCSI Node Architecture Key
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>
Errors-To: ips-bounces@ietf.org
RFC publication has just been requested for the VF MIB draft. The PROTO process (cf. draft-ietf-proto-wgchair-doc-shepherding-07.txt) is being used. Here is the PROTO writeup: Declarative Public Extension Key for iSCSI Node Architecture draft-ietf-ips-iscsi-nodearch-key-02.txt Requested Publication Status: Informational PROTO shepherd: David L. Black (IPS WG Chair) ------------------------------------------------------------------------ (1.a) Who is the Document Shepherd for this document? David L. Black <black_david@emc.com> Has the Document Shepherd personally reviewed this version of the document and, in particular, does he or she believe this version is ready for forwarding to the IESG for publication? Yes. (1.b) Has the document had adequate review both from key WG members and from key non-WG members? Yes. Does the Document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews that have been performed? No - the WG went over this draft with a fine-toothed comb. (1.c) Does the Document Shepherd have concerns that the document needs more review from a particular or broader perspective, e.g., security, operational complexity, someone familiar with AAA, internationalization or XML? No. (1.d) Does the Document Shepherd have any specific concerns or issues with this document that the Responsible Area Director and/or the IESG should be aware of? For example, perhaps he or she is uncomfortable with certain parts of the document, or has concerns whether there really is a need for it. In any event, if those issues have been discussed in the WG and the WG has indicated that it still wishes to advance the document, detail those concerns here. The design of this key is based on HTTP mechanisms that have been abused to identify browsers, causing interoperability issues rising to the level of refusing to allow certain browsers to access certain web sites. This draft contains language intended to strongly discourage that sort of abuse, and while it is impossible to prohibit such abuse, in practice it can be accomplished by other means (e.g., look for presence or absence of a private key specific to an implementation). The iSCSI protocol is also considerably constrained (functionally) by comparison to web content (e.g., Javascript), and initial iSCSI interoperability experience has been good. This document is being published as Informational because RFC 3720 indicates that this class of key specification should be published as informational. RFC 2119 terminology is nonetheless appropriate because this document specifies a protocol extension. (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? There is solid WG consensus behind this document. (1.f) <Not sent to WG> (1.g) Has the Document Shepherd verified that the document satisfies all ID nits? (See http://www.ietf.org/ID-Checklist.html and http://tools.ietf.org/tools/idnits/). Boilerplate checks are not enough; this check needs to be thorough. The online checker finds no problems. (1.h) Has the document split its references into normative and informative? Yes. Are there normative references to documents that are not ready for advancement or are otherwise in an unclear state? If such normative references exist, what is the strategy for their completion? No. Are there normative references that are downward references, as described in [RFC3967]? If so, list these downward references to support the Area Director in the Last Call procedure for them [RFC3967]. No. (1.i) The IESG approval announcement includes a Document Announcement Write-Up. Please provide such a Document Announcement Write-Up. Recent examples can be found in the "Action" announcements for approved documents. The approval announcement contains the following sections: Technical Summary The iSCSI protocol, described in RFC 3720, allows for extension items to the protocol in the form of Private or Public Extension Keys. This Internet-Draft describes a Public Extension Key for the purpose of enhancing iSCSI supportability. The key accomplishes this objective by allowing iSCSI nodes to communicate architecture details during the iSCSI login sequence. The receiving node can then use this information for enhanced logging and support. Working Group Summary This document was carefully reviewed in the WG primarily for security concerns (protecting sensitive information about what is running) and the possible abuse of this key in a fashion similar to the abuse of the HTTP "Server" and "User-Agent" fields that can damage interoperability. As a result of this WG attention, the draft contains specific text to address both concerns. Document Quality There are implementations of functionality similar to that provided by this key. This draft was reviewed for the IPS WG by David L. Black. Thanks, --David ---------------------------------------------------- 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