[Ips] Access to T10 and T11 documents

Black_David@emc.com Wed, 27 May 2009 15:14 UTC

Return-Path: <Black_David@emc.com>
X-Original-To: ips@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ips@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A344E3A6C9A; Wed, 27 May 2009 08:14:46 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.501
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.501 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.098, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id XrBo7BHMjJCR; Wed, 27 May 2009 08:14:45 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mexforward.lss.emc.com (mexforward.lss.emc.com [128.222.32.20]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8EE273A6D01; Wed, 27 May 2009 08:14:45 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from hop04-l1d11-si04.isus.emc.com (HOP04-L1D11-SI04.isus.emc.com [10.254.111.24]) by mexforward.lss.emc.com (Switch-3.2.5/Switch-3.1.7) with ESMTP id n4RFFmAx023357 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Wed, 27 May 2009 11:15:49 -0400 (EDT)
From: Black_David@emc.com
Received: from mailhub.lss.emc.com (nagas.lss.emc.com [10.254.144.15]) by hop04-l1d11-si04.isus.emc.com (Tablus Interceptor); Wed, 27 May 2009 11:15:45 -0400
Received: from corpussmtp3.corp.emc.com (corpussmtp3.corp.emc.com [10.254.64.53]) by mailhub.lss.emc.com (Switch-3.3.2mp/Switch-3.3.2mp) with ESMTP id n4RFFdhC015993; Wed, 27 May 2009 11:15:44 -0400
Received: from CORPUSMX80A.corp.emc.com ([10.254.89.202]) by corpussmtp3.corp.emc.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959); Wed, 27 May 2009 11:15:43 -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: Wed, 27 May 2009 11:15:42 -0400
Message-ID: <9FA859626025B64FBC2AF149D97C944A02CD35E3@CORPUSMX80A.corp.emc.com>
In-Reply-To: <9FA859626025B64FBC2AF149D97C944A02B76719@CORPUSMX80A.corp.emc.com>
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
Thread-Topic: Access to T10 and T11 documents
Thread-Index: AcnU68MKP8w1/43XSuCjAymoGT4jUAJ7lkYw
References: <9FA859626025B64FBC2AF149D97C944A02B76719@CORPUSMX80A.corp.emc.com>
To: <storm@ietf.org>
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 27 May 2009 15:15:43.0253 (UTC) FILETIME=[00B1D450:01C9DEDE]
X-EMM-EM: Active
Cc: imss@ietf.org, ips@ietf.org, Black_David@emc.com, rddp@ietf.org
Subject: [Ips] Access to T10 and T11 documents
X-BeenThere: ips@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: IP Storage <ips.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ips>, <mailto:ips-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ips>
List-Post: <mailto:ips@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ips-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ips>, <mailto:ips-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 27 May 2009 15:14:46 -0000

Not too long ago, I wrote:

> In addition, I've run into a minor hiccup involving access to
> T10 (SCSI) and T11 (Fibre Channel) standards documents.  The
> INCITS access rules changed recently to prohibit general
> public access to final drafts of approved standards (access is
> available to anyone whose company belongs to T10 or T11).  This
> is not as big a problem as it might appear, because our primary
> need in IETF is access to working drafts that remain publicly
> accessible.
> 
> An important specific example is that part of the iSCSI update
> work to SAM-4 is to specify a number of new task management
> functions, including QUERY TASK.  It turns out that T10 has made
> a minor, but important, change to QUERY TASK in their ongoing
> SAM-5 work and hence the appropriate base document for this iSCSI
> work appears to be revision 1 of SAM-5, which is publicly
> accessible.  There are a number of other examples in which the
> current working draft of the standard is an appropriate reference
> document for the proposed storm WG work.
> 
> This should not be mistaken for a complete answer - some access
> will be needed to final drafts of standards (e.g., those referenced
> by RFCs that are to be updated).  A means for providing this
> access to IETF participants has been worked out with T10.  I
> expect the corresponding means to work with T11, but I need
> to finish double-checking that before explaining how it'll work.

So, here is the complete answer ...

Both T10 and T11 have designated IETF as a liaison organization
and have designated me as the individual responsible for the
liaison relationship with IETF.  This action authorizes me (as
the individual responsible for the liaison relationship) to provide
copies of final drafts of T10 and T11 standards to IETF participants
for their personal use in IETF standardization activities that are
related to T10 and T11 standards.  I plan to do this via responding
to email requests, and would ask people to be judicious in making
requests - in particular, if your organization is a T10 or T11
member, you already have direct access to all of these documents
and don't need to go through me.

We have to resort to this mechanism (e.g., vs. just posting the
final drafts) because INCITS, the parent organization of T10 and
T11, changed the access rules for these drafts last year.

Also, I would caution everyone that T10 and T11 use the term
'liaison' for almost all external relationships, whereas IETF
reserves that term for situations "when the IAB feels that
conditions warrant appointing" a liaison, and the IETF further
cautions: "Note that such appointments are rare as the best way
for organizations to work with the IETF is to do so within the
working groups."

The current intent is for the T10 and T11 relationships to follow
that advice via being handled directly with the storm WG(-to-be)
as opposed to being indirected through an IETF Liaison (e.g., as
that will cause a corresponding indirection on the T10 and T11
sides, with the potential to seriously gum up the works).

I'll send a v5 version of the proposed storm charter to the
list shortly, and this is what will probably be sent out for
IETF-wide review.

Replies to this message should go only to the storm@ietf.org list.
Thanks,
--David
----------------------------------------------------
David L. Black, Distinguished Engineer
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
----------------------------------------------------