Re: [Ips] STORM BOF - Draft minutes

[[e-mail]]

Having seen no objection to (or even comment on) this on
the list:

> The overall conclusion of the BOF is that a new STORM
> (STORage Maintenance) WG should be formed to pursue
> essentially the program of work in the draft charter that
> I sent to the lists earlier.  There will be a new
> [e-mail] mailing list for this WG.

the conclusion of the BOF is confirmed, and I will proceed
to put together an actual proposal to form a WG.  The
next steps will be to put the new [e-mail] mailing
list in place and produce an actual draft charter with
milestones.  The draft charter will take a little
while (week or two) to appear for comment, as I first want
to contact potential draft authors to ensure that the
milestone dates are somewhat plausible before putting
them into the draft charter.

Anyone interesting is being a WG co-chair (multiple co-chairs
are likely) should contact our responsible Area Director,
Lars Eggert [[e-mail]] (cc:'ing me would be
appreciated, but is not necessary), as appointment of WG
chairs is up to the Area Directors.

I will also make minor edits to the draft minutes and
submit them to the proceedings.

Thanks,
--David

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Black, David 
> Sent: Friday, March 27, 2009 12:58 AM
> To: [e-mail]; [e-mail]
> Cc: [e-mail]; Black, David
> Subject: STORM BOF - Draft minutes
> 
> See below - these are a bit on the long side, as a lot of
> ground was covered in the BOF.  Many thanks to Paul Koning
> for helping to take notes.
> 
> We did not actually have a jabber scribe providing running
> commentary in the jabber room - the assumption/hope was that
> everyone in the jabber room was listening to the audio feed.
> If that was a bad assumption, please send me an email
> directly, and we'll do better in the future.
> 
> The overall conclusion of the BOF is that a new STORM
> (STORage Maintenance) WG should be formed to pursue
> essentially the program of work in the draft charter that
> I sent to the lists earlier.  There will be a new
> [e-mail] mailing list for this WG.
> 
> As all decisions in IETF meetings are confirmed on mailing
> lists, now is the time to speak up if:
> - anyone thinks that a WG should not be formed, or
> - anyone thinks that one or more of the work items on the
> 	draft charter (see minutes) should not be done.
> I will also be contacting some people directly to try to
> ensure that there is at least one Internet-Draft author
> for each work item.
> 
> Please also provide any other corrections to the minutes
> (either to the list or directly to me).
> 
> Thanks,
> --David
> 
> 
> Transport Area (TSV) BOF: STORM (STORage Maintenance)
> THURSDAY, March 26, 2009, 0900-1130 Morning Session I
> IETF San Francisco Meetings
> =======================================================
> 
> BOF chair: David L. Black, EMC ([e-mail])
> 
> Minutes - Initial Draft
> ----------------------
> 
> --- Administrivia ----
>   - Note Well (projected)
>   - Blue Sheets (circulated)
>   - Scribes (minutes, jabber)
> 	Jabber room was initially not functioning, but was fixed shortly
> 	after BOF started
>   - Purpose of BOF: Question #1: Should an IETF WG be formed?
> 
> --- Agenda Bashing ---
> Agenda was bashed to add discussion of possibly related work in T11
> (Fibre Channel Standards Organization).  The T11 vice chair 
> (and acting
> chair) was present to discuss the item.
> 
> -- Draft charter: Initial presentation ---
> Charter presented, no text bashed.
> 
> Discussion of possible iSCSI-related work
>   - Consolidated iSCSI RFC
>   - Whether to take iSCSI to Draft Standard status, including
> 	implementation report
>   - SAM-4 feature addition
> 
> Extensive discussion indicated clear strong interest in the SAM-4
> feature addition and interest in consolidating the iSCSI RFCs into a
> single document that could go to Draft Standard status.  The resulting
> plan is to have two drafts:
> 	1) An rfc3720bis draft that consolidates and prunes the
> 	   current iSCSI RFCs based on current implementations.  The
> 	   intent is that this draft be suitable for Draft 
> Standard status.
> 	2) A "new features" draft that adds (in a backwards compatible
> 	   fashion) minor new features, starting with the new SAM-4
> 	   features. This draft would be intended for Proposed Standard
> 	   status, and all of its contents would be optional 
> and negotiable
> 	   (e.g., via text keys at iSCSI login).
> The "new features" draft would not be limited to SAM-4 
> features, but all
> additions would need to be minor.  IETF procedures would 
> allow everything
> to be rolled into one document that could be taken to Draft Standard
> status after a 6 month waiting period at Proposed Standard, 
> but the sense
> of the discussion was that the above two-document plan is the better
> course of action, and that only widely implemented features in current
> implementations should be considered for a Draft Standard RFC.
> 
> The BOF chair prefers that the decision as to whether to take iSCSI to
> Draft Standard status be deferred, and will write charter 
> text to allow
> this, but not require it.  Among the reasons for this are the 
> amount of
> work involved and potential interactions with other RFC documents that
> are currently at Proposed Standard status.
> 
> It seems to make better sense to specify iSCSI support for all new
> SAM-4 features (as other SCSI transports, such as FCP [SCSI over Fibre
> Channel] and SAS [Serial Attach SCSI]) have done, rather than only
> specify selected SAM-4 features.  iSCSI could then define 
> multiple text
> keys to allow support for these features (or groups of them) to be
> separately negotiated.
> 
> IETF coordination with T10 is planned to be handled informally.  At
> least David Black (BOF chair) and Fred Knight (one of the 
> presenters on
> the SAM-4 topic) are active T10 participants who can facilitate this
> coordination.  The formal IETF mechanisms for liaison with other
> organizations appear unlikely to be needed.
> 
> --- FC encapsulation-related work (possible) ---
>   - iFCP Address Translation obsolescence
>   - FC(IP) IP Protocol Number
> 
> Both of these appear to be good ideas.  The BOF chair is prepared to
> write the Internet-Draft for the first item, and the second item is
> for the WG to investigate whether IP Protocol number 133 (allocated
> for Fibre Channel in 2000) is unused and should be returned to IANA
> for future reassignment.
> 
> 	- Related T11 activity (RDDP over Ethernet)
> 
> T11 is the standards organization for Fibre Channel. A proposal has
> been submitted to T11 for it to work on hosting the RDDP (aka iWARP)
> protocols on Ethernet directly via IP, see T11 document 09-141v0:
> 	http://www.t11.org/ftp/t11/admin/project_proposals/09-141v0.pdf
> 
> The design proposed in that document appears to require allocation of
> an IP Protocol number.  That can only be done by the IESG, and appears
> unlikely, as the proposed DCRP protocol is not intended to run over
> public networks like the Internet, has no congestion control and no
> security.  UDP encapsulation may be a more plausible way forward, but
> there is a track record of protocols intended for closed networks
> "escaping" into the broader Internet.
> 
> The BOF chair (David Black) is also a member of the IETF Transport
> Directorate and a T11 participant - he will take these concerns to the
> T11 meetings next week and express a desire for significant 
> consultation
> between T11 and the IETF before T11 moves this work moves forward.
> The responsible Transport AD (Lars Eggert) concurs with and supports
> this course of action.
> 
> --- RDDP-related work (possible) ---
>   - MPA startup change for MPI
> 
> There has been a lot of support for this relatively contained
> proposed work item on the mailing list.
> 
> --- iSER-related work (possible) ---
>   - Clarifications arising from InfiniBand and other use of iSER
> 
> There has been support on the mailing list for this proposed work
> item.
> 
> --- Any other proposed work items ---
> Nothing additional proposed.
> 
> --- Draft charter: Text bashing, round 2 ---
> No further bashing.
> 
> --- WG formation discussion  ---
> Clear interest in forming a WG, with a desire to limit travel.
> 
> Work item discussion took a bit longer.  Different people are
> interested in different work items.  A discussion of whether any
> work items should be deleted from the initial list in the charter
> did not identify any to be deleted, but acknowledged the BOF chair's
> preference to not have the charter commit up front to taking iSCSI
> to Draft Standard status.  With that change, the "rough consensus"
> of the meeting (supported by some comments in the jabber room and
> emails sent to the list) is that a WG should be formed to take on
> essentially the plan of work in the draft charter.
> 
> Discussion about travel and meetings reflected a concern about
> travel in current economic conditions and a desire to conduct as
> much work as possible on the mailing list.  Beyond that, face-to-
> face meetings are sometimes needed to resolve issues and make
> progress - in line with current IETF practice, if a meeting is
> needed during an IETF meeting week, it'll be scheduled without
> significant consideration of where that IETF meeting is located.
> The expected default for the WG will be to not meet face-to-face
> unless there are clear issues that require a meeting.
> 
> Interim meetings were suggested as a possibility, but there does
> not appear to be a geographic concentration of interested people;
> the BOF chair is aware of likely participants on both coasts of
> the US, China, Switzerland and Israel.  Iceland was half-heartedly
> suggested as approximately equally inconvenient for all concerned.
> 
> --- Mailing List Usage ---
> 
> Organization of the BOF was conducted on the existing [e-mail]
> and [e-mail] mailing lists, with the [e-mail] list cc:'d.
> 
> After some discussion, the mailing list plan going forward is:
> - Form new [e-mail] mailing list for new STORM WG.
> - Announce this list on the IMSS, IPS and RDDP lists, inviting
> 	people to subscribe to the new STORM list.
> - No further STORM-related activity on the IMSS list after this
> 	announcement (and perhaps a few reminders).
> - Set IPS and RDDP auto-responders to indicate existence of STORM
> 	list.
> - After some period of time, close down the RDDP list, ask the
> 	IETF secretariat to set up an auto-responder for email to
> 	[e-mail] indicating that [e-mail] should be used.
> - Leave IPS list open with auto-responders modified as above.
> - Leave IMSS list as it currently is.
> 
> --- Milestones ---
> In order to have a charter that can be approved, milestones are
> needed.  A small amount of discussion yielded the following 
> guidelines:
> - Small stuff  (e.g., MPA fix) should make it to Working 
> Group Last Call
> 	(WG LC) this year
> - Other larger things (e.g., SAM-4) may need until latter part of next
> 	year to reach WG LC.
> - iSCSI: The consolidated iSCSI draft may be a 2 year 
> project, but there
> 	should be a decent draft in about 1 year.
> - The charter will allow lazy evaluation of decision about whether to
> 	take iSCSI to Draft Standard, and hence not propose any 
> milestones
> 	for that.
> 
> --- Next steps ---
> - BOF chair to revise charter (with milestones) and send to mailing
> 	lists for review.
> - Assuming no significant objections to WG creation are raised, the
> 	secretariat will be asked to create a [e-mail] 
> mailing list.
> - The actual storm WG formation request will probably go to the Area
> 	Director (Lars) for presentation to the IESG in about a month.
> 
> 14 names on blue sheet, about 8 additional jabber room participants.
>