[rddp] Publication Request: MPA
Black_David@emc.com Thu, 06 October 2005 06:09 UTC
Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1ENOwp-0006n7-Mg; Thu, 06 Oct 2005 02:09:43 -0400
Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1ENOwo-0006n2-7E for rddp@megatron.ietf.org; Thu, 06 Oct 2005 02:09:42 -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 CAA05489 for <rddp@ietf.org>; Thu, 6 Oct 2005 02:09:40 -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 1ENP5p-0006O9-GA for rddp@ietf.org; Thu, 06 Oct 2005 02:19:01 -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 j9669ax4012401 for <rddp@ietf.org>; Thu, 6 Oct 2005 02:09:36 -0400 (EDT)
Received: by mxic2.corp.emc.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id <RT6ARF0Y>; Thu, 6 Oct 2005 02:09:36 -0400
Message-ID: <F222151D3323874393F83102D614E0557A6F68@CORPUSMX20A.corp.emc.com>
To: rddp@ietf.org
Date: Thu, 06 Oct 2005 02:09:33 -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: 2005.10.5.42
X-PerlMx-Spam: Gauge=, SPAM=0%, Reasons='EMC_BODY_1+ -5, EMC_FROM_00+ 0, NO_REAL_NAME 0, __C230066_P2 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: 5d7a7e767f20255fce80fa0b77fb2433
Subject: [rddp] Publication Request: MPA
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 MPA draft. The PROTO process (cf. draft-ietf-proto-wgchair-doc-shepherding-05.txt) is being used. Here is the PROTO writeup: PROTO writeup: Marker PDU Aligned Framing for TCP Specification draft-ietf-rddp-mpa-03.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 IETF 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. This draft contains a significant quantity of TCP-specific behavioral details. The WG has settled on an approach that does not involve making changes to TCP. Expert Review from a TCP expert would be a good idea to make sure that nothing has been overlooked that could result in an unintended TCP change or unwarranted restriction. 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 distributed 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 online checker says everything is fine. 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.) The only normative reference to an Internet-Draft is: o draft-ietf-rddp-security - publication has already been requested. 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 MPA (Marker Protocol data unit Aligned framing) is designed to work as an "adaptation layer" between TCP and the Direct Data Placement [DDP] protocol, preserving the reliable, in-order delivery of TCP, while adding the preservation of higher-level protocol record boundaries that DDP requires. MPA is fully compliant with applicable TCP RFCs and can be utilized with existing TCP implementations. MPA also supports integrated implementations that combine TCP, MPA and DDP to reduce buffering requirements in the implementation and improve performance at the system level. -- Working Group Summary The degree to which TCP should be changed for MPA (and hence the rddp protocol stack) has been a source of controversy. The WG has adopted an approach that requires no TCP modifications, and there is now strong WG consensus for that approach. -- Protocol Quality The protocol has been reviewed for the rddp WG by David L. Black. There are multiple implementations of the MPA protocol, including the Request and Reply frames for connection setup added by the WG at the direction of the Transport Area. ---------------------------------------------------- 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: MPA Black_David