[rddp] Publication Request: Applicability
Black_David@emc.com Tue, 11 October 2005 20:33 UTC
Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1EPQos-0005sI-HM; Tue, 11 Oct 2005 16:33:54 -0400
Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1EPQop-0005oH-NP for rddp@megatron.ietf.org; Tue, 11 Oct 2005 16:33:53 -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 QAA01738 for <rddp@ietf.org>; Tue, 11 Oct 2005 16:33:49 -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 1EPQz0-0000aC-IA for rddp@ietf.org; Tue, 11 Oct 2005 16:44:22 -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 j9BKXlJC012678 for <rddp@ietf.org>; Tue, 11 Oct 2005 16:33:48 -0400 (EDT)
Received: by mxic2.corp.emc.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id <RT6A75NV>; Tue, 11 Oct 2005 16:33:37 -0400
Message-ID: <F222151D3323874393F83102D614E0557A6FCD@CORPUSMX20A.corp.emc.com>
To: rddp@ietf.org
Date: Tue, 11 Oct 2005 16:33:30 -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: 2005.10.11.23
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: f66b12316365a3fe519e75911daf28a8
Subject: [rddp] Publication Request: Applicability
X-BeenThere: rddp@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: "IETF Remote Direct Data Placement \(rddp\) WG" <rddp.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rddp>, <mailto:rddp-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:rddp@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:rddp-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rddp>, <mailto:rddp-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Sender: rddp-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: rddp-bounces@ietf.org
Publication has just been requested on the RDDP Applicability draft. The PROTO process (cf. draft-ietf-proto-wgchair-doc-shepherding-05.txt) is being used. Here is the PROTO writeup: Applicability of Remote Direct Memory Access Protocol (RDMA) and Direct Data Placement (DDP) draft-ietf-rddp-applicability-04.txt Requested Publication Status: Informational PROTO shepherd: David L. Black (RDDP 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. There are a few editing issues that the RFC Editor can address. 1.b) Has the document had adequate review from both key WG members and key non-WG members? Yes, primarily from WG members. Do you have any concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews that have been performed? The draft has had limited review outside the WG. 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.)? No. 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? Most of the WG is interested in rddp over TCP. There is limited interest in SCTP, or in a draft like this that includes guidance on choosing between TCP and SCTP. The portion of the WG that is interested in SCTP 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). Yes. 1.h) Is the document split into normative and informative references? Yes. All references are normative. 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 four normative references to Internet-Drafts: o draft-ietf-rddp-rdmap, draft-ietf-rddp-ddp - publication has already been requested. o draft-ietf-rddp-mpa, draft-ietf-rddp-sctp - publication has already been requested. 1.i) For Standards Track and BCP documents, the IESG approval announcement includes a write-up section N/A - this is an Informational document. ---------------------------------------------------- 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 ---------------------------------------------------- _______________________________________________ rddp mailing list rddp@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rddp
- [rddp] Publication Request: Applicability Black_David