Re: [rddp] [Ips] Storage Maintenance (storm) BOF reminder & requests

["Mallikarjun C." <[e-mail]>]

Hi David,

My recommendation would be to defer the interoperability survey and draft consolidation work for iSCSI.  I do believe however that at least iSCSI SAM-4 compliance work in a backwards compatible fashion is required.  I currently plan to contribute to/author this work, although I unfortunately will not be able to attend the San Francisco meeting in person.

I tend to prefer your option C for the same reasons you cited.  Option B *might be* workable as the next preferred option.  One other suggestion I have is that even with a virtual WG (option C), I believe we will need to move at a relatively slower pace compared to the IPS WG because given the economy, everyone has enough workload on their plates in their companies and has fewer cycles to stay on top of the WG mailing list.  IMHO, this will need to be factored into milestones and such in the planning process.  

Thanks. --
Mallikarjun Chadalapaka 



----- Original Message ----
> From: "[e-mail]" <[e-mail]>
> To: [e-mail]; [e-mail]
> Cc: [e-mail]; [e-mail]
> Sent: Wednesday, March 11, 2009 4:28:10 PM
> Subject: [Ips] Storage Maintenance (storm) BOF reminder & requests
> 
> 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...            FAX: [phone]
> [e-mail]        Mobile:  [phone] 
> ----------------------------------------------------
> _______________________________________________
> Ips mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ips