[rddp] DDP PROTO writeup
Black_David@emc.com Thu, 29 September 2005 17:18 UTC
Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1EL23f-0006Rl-Kz; Thu, 29 Sep 2005 13:18:59 -0400
Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1EL23e-0006Rd-AI for rddp@megatron.ietf.org; Thu, 29 Sep 2005 13:18:58 -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 NAA23426 for <rddp@ietf.org>; Thu, 29 Sep 2005 13:18:54 -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 1EL2BK-0007xA-OA for rddp@ietf.org; Thu, 29 Sep 2005 13:26:56 -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 j8THIrlj005213 for <rddp@ietf.org>; Thu, 29 Sep 2005 13:18:54 -0400 (EDT)
Received: by mxic2.corp.emc.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id <RT6ADS09>; Thu, 29 Sep 2005 13:18:53 -0400
Message-ID: <F222151D3323874393F83102D614E0557A6EED@CORPUSMX20A.corp.emc.com>
To: rddp@ietf.org
Date: Thu, 29 Sep 2005 13:18:36 -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: 2005.9.29.18
X-PerlMx-Spam: Gauge=, SPAM=0%, Reasons='EMC_BODY_1+ -5, EMC_FROM_00+ 0, 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: b22590c27682ace61775ee7b453b40d3
Subject: [rddp] DDP PROTO writeup
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
The PROTO process (cf. draft-ietf-proto-wgchair-doc-shepherding-05.txt) is being used for the DDP draft. Here is the PROTO writeup: Direct Data Placement over Reliable Transports draft-ietf-rddp-ddp-05.txt Requested Publication Status: Proposed Standard 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. 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? The WG as a whole 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 ID nits checker doesn't like the page separators or absence thereof (it thinks the document is 1 page). It says everything else is ok. 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 two normative references to Internet-Drafts: o draft-ietf-rddp-rdmap - publication has been requested along with this draft. o draft-ietf-rddp-mpa - publication will be requested within the next 2 weeks. 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 Direct Data Placement Protocol (DDP) enables an Upper Layer Protocol (ULP) to send data to a Data Sink without requiring the Data Sink to Place the data in an intermediate buffer - thus when the data arrives at the Data Sink, the network interface can Place the data directly into the ULP's buffer. This can enable the Data Sink to consume substantially less memory bandwidth than a buffered model because the Data Sink is not required to move the data from the intermediate buffer to the final destination. Additionally, this can also enable the network protocol to consume substantially fewer CPU cycles than if the CPU was used to move the data, and removes the bandwidth limitation of only being able to move data as fast as the CPU can copy the data. DDP preserves ULP record boundaries (messages) while providing a variety of data transfer mechanisms and completion mechanisms to be used to transfer ULP messages. -- Working Group Summary DDP provides two mechanisms, a Tagged Buffer mechanism for Remote DMA transfers where the network communication contains a destination memory offset, and an Untagged Buffer mechanism that supports socket-like sends where the receiver chooses the buffer on its own. The WG has strong consensus that both mechanisms are required in order for an implementation to exercise control over all memory buffer resources used for network communication. -- Protocol Quality The protocol has been reviewed for the rddp 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 ---------------------------------------------------- _______________________________________________ rddp mailing list rddp@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rddp
- [rddp] DDP PROTO writeup Black_David