Re: [rddp] Storage Maintenance (storm) BOF reminder & requests
Fredy Neeser <nfd@zurich.ibm.com> Wed, 25 March 2009 16:56 UTC
Return-Path: <nfd@zurich.ibm.com>
X-Original-To: rddp@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: rddp@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AC6BA3A6B45; Wed, 25 Mar 2009 09:56:51 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.598
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.598 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, 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 FnSb3UKDUKQL; Wed, 25 Mar 2009 09:56:50 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mtagate2.de.ibm.com (mtagate2.de.ibm.com [195.212.17.162]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 390C73A67FD; Wed, 25 Mar 2009 09:56:49 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from d12nrmr1607.megacenter.de.ibm.com (d12nrmr1607.megacenter.de.ibm.com [9.149.167.49]) by mtagate2.de.ibm.com (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id n2PGvcsD022282; Wed, 25 Mar 2009 16:57:38 GMT
Received: from d12av05.megacenter.de.ibm.com (d12av05.megacenter.de.ibm.com [9.149.165.216]) by d12nrmr1607.megacenter.de.ibm.com (8.13.8/8.13.8/NCO v9.2) with ESMTP id n2PGvb6J4112500; Wed, 25 Mar 2009 17:57:37 +0100
Received: from d12av05.megacenter.de.ibm.com (loopback [127.0.0.1]) by d12av05.megacenter.de.ibm.com (8.13.1/8.13.3) with ESMTP id n2PGvbMX005156; Wed, 25 Mar 2009 17:57:37 +0100
Received: from d12mc302.megacenter.de.ibm.com (d12mc302.megacenter.de.ibm.com [9.149.170.82]) by d12av05.megacenter.de.ibm.com (8.13.1/8.12.11) with ESMTP id n2PGvbIT005153; Wed, 25 Mar 2009 17:57:37 +0100
In-Reply-To: <9FA859626025B64FBC2AF149D97C944A01F736BA@CORPUSMX80A.corp.emc.com>
References: <9FA859626025B64FBC2AF149D97C944A01F736BA@CORPUSMX80A.corp.emc.com>
To: Black_David@emc.com, rddp@ietf.org, ips@ietf.org
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-KeepSent: E6A59B51:5C82116C-C1257584:00557D3C; type=4; name=$KeepSent
X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 8.0.2 August 07, 2008
From: Fredy Neeser <nfd@zurich.ibm.com>
Message-ID: <OFE6A59B51.5C82116C-ONC1257584.00557D3C-C1257584.005D2A1A@ch.ibm.com>
Date: Wed, 25 Mar 2009 17:57:35 +0100
X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on D12MC302/12/M/IBM(Release 8.0.1|February 07, 2008) at 25/03/2009 17:57:36, Serialize complete at 25/03/2009 17:57:36
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="=_alternative 005D29C5C1257584_="
Subject: Re: [rddp] Storage Maintenance (storm) BOF reminder & requests
X-BeenThere: rddp@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: "IETF Remote Direct Data Placement \(rddp\) WG" <rddp.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rddp>, <mailto:rddp-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/rddp>
List-Post: <mailto:rddp@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:rddp-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rddp>, <mailto:rddp-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 25 Mar 2009 16:56:51 -0000
David, All, While I am unfortunately unable to attend the BOF this week, I am interested in contributing to - RDDP MPA: Small startup update for MPI application support. preferably through your Option (C), the "virtual" working group. *** The interoperability of MPA-based RDMA connection management is still a concern - for MPI, NFS/RDMA and other apps. Because MPA has the (theoretically well-known) requirement that the first FPDU be sent from the RDMA initiator side, whereas InfiniBand has no such requirement, RDMA application writers tend to be caught by surprise when an application that violates this requirement works on InfiniBand but doesn't on iWARP. The so-called "peer-to-peer connection management" that was discussed in various flavours on the Linux OpenFabrics reflector for making RDMA connection management more uniform (among transports) and easier to use should be studied in detail. The solution should be flexible enough to allow an optimized application to avoid unnecessary additional round-trip delays. In addition, MPA's "delayed startup sequence" (a.k.a. delayed transition to RDMA mode or socket conversion) may need further clarification. For instance, the negotiation of connection parameters such as IRD and ORD should be clarified for cases where Private Data is not used in MPA Request/Reply. (IRD adjustment in RTS state is not mandatory according to the RDMAC Verbs, p. 74). *** Besides contributing to draft text, I am interested in early testing of the MPA startup update through a software implementation. Thanks, - Fredy ----------------------------------- Fredy Neeser, Research Staff Member IBM Zurich Research Laboratory Saeumerstrasse 4 CH-8803 Rueschlikon, Switzerland e-Mail: nfd@zurich.ibm.com Phone : +41 (0)44 724 8487 ----------------------------------- From: Black_David@emc.com To: <ips@ietf.org>, <rddp@ietf.org> Cc: imss@ietf.org, Black_David@emc.com Date: 12.03.2009 00:29 Subject: [rddp] Storage Maintenance (storm) BOF reminder & requests Sent by: rddp-bounces@ietf.org This is a reminder that the Storage Maintenance BOF will be held in about 2 weeks at the IETF meetings in San Francisco. Please plan to attend if you're interested: THURSDAY, March 26, 2009 Continental 1&2 TSV storm Storage Maintenance BOF The BOF description is at: http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ips/current/msg02669.html The initial agenda is here: http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ips/current/msg02670.html I'm going to go upload that initial agenda as the BOF agenda, and it can be bashed at the meeting. The primary purpose of this BOF is to answer two questions: (1) What storage maintenance work (IP Storage, Remote Direct Data Placement) should be done? (2) Should an IETF Working Group be formed to undertake that work? Everyone gets to weigh in on these decisions, even those who can't attend the BOF meeting. Anyone who thinks that there is work that should be done, and who cannot come to the BOF meeting should say so on the IPS or RDDP mailing lists (and it'd be a good idea for those who can come to do this). As part of the email, please indicate how you're interested in helping (author or co-author of specific drafts, promise to review and comment on specific drafts). Here's a summary of the initial draft list of work items: - iSCSI: Combine RFCs into one document, removing unused features. - iSCSI: Interoperability report on what has been implemented and interoperates in support of Draft Standard status for iSCSI. - iSCSI: Add backwards-compatible features to support SAM-4. - iFCP: The Address Translation mode of iFCP needs to be deprecated. - RDDP MPA: Small startup update for MPI application support. - iSER: A few minor updates based on InfiniBand experience. Additional work (e.g., updated/improved iSNS for iSCSI, MIB changes, updated ipsec security profile [i.e., IKEv2-based]) is possible if there's interest. There are (at least) four possible outcomes: (A) None of this work needs to be done. (B) There are some small work items that make sense. Individual drafts with a draft shepherd (i.e., David Black) will suffice. (C) A working group is needed to undertake more complex work items and reach consensus on design issues. The WG can be "virtual" and operate mostly via the mailing list until/unless controversial/contentious issues arise. (D) There is a lot of complex work that is needed, and a WG that will plan to meet at every IETF meeting should be formed. Please note that the IETF "rough consensus" process requires a working group in practice to be effective. This makes outcome (C) look attractive to me, as: - I'm coming under increasing pressure to limit travel, and the next two IETF meetings after San Francisco are not in the US. - I'd rather have the "rough consensus" process available and not need it than need it and not have it available. Setting an example for how to express interest ... --------------- I think that the iSCSI single RFC and interoperability report are good ideas, but I want to see a bunch of people expressing interest in these, as significant effort is involved. It might make sense to do the single iSCSI RFC but put off the interoperability report (the resulting RFC would remain at Proposed Standard rather than going to Draft Standard), as I'm not hearing about major iSCSI interoperability issues. I think the latter four items (SAM-4 for iSCSI, deprecate iFCP address translation, MPI fix to MPA and iSER fixes) should all be done. I plan to author the iFCP address translation deprecation draft, and review all other drafts. I think that a virtual WG should be formed that plans to do its work primarily via the mailing list. I believe the SAM-4 work by itself is complex enough to need a working group - I would expect design issues to turn up at least there and in determining whether to remove certain iSCSI features, but I'm cautiously optimistic that the mailing list is sufficient to work these issues out (and concerned that travel restrictions are likely to force use of the mailing list). ----------------- Ok, who wants to go next? 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 ---------------------------------------------------- _______________________________________________ rddp mailing list rddp@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rddp
- [rddp] Storage Maintenance (storm) BOF reminder &… Black_David
- [rddp] STORM BOF time Black_David
- Re: [rddp] Storage Maintenance (storm) BOF remind… Stephen Bailey
- Re: [rddp] [Ips] Storage Maintenance (storm) BOF … Julian Satran
- Re: [rddp] [Ips] Storage Maintenance (storm) BOF … Lars Eggert
- Re: [rddp] [Ips] Storage Maintenance (storm) BOF … Knight, Frederick
- Re: [rddp] [Ips] Storage Maintenance (storm) BOF … Mallikarjun C.
- Re: [rddp] [Ips] Storage Maintenance (storm) BOF … Robert D. Russell
- Re: [rddp] [Junk released by Allow List] Re: [Ips… Felix Marti
- Re: [rddp] [Junk released by Allow List] Re: [Ips… Mikkel Hagen
- Re: [rddp] [Ips] Storage Maintenance (storm) BOF … Bernard Metzler
- Re: [rddp] [Ips] Storage Maintenance (storm) BOF … Caitlin Bestler
- Re: [rddp] [Ips] Storage Maintenance (storm) BOF … Caitlin Bestler
- Re: [rddp] Storage Maintenance (storm) BOF remind… Uri Elzur
- Re: [rddp] [Ips] Storage Maintenance (storm) BOF … Robert D. Russell
- Re: [rddp] Storage Maintenance (storm) BOF remind… Fredy Neeser
- Re: [rddp] Storage Maintenance (storm) BOF remind… Minturn, Dave B
- Re: [rddp] Storage Maintenance (storm) BOF remind… Felix Marti