[rddp] Publication Request: SCTP draft
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 1ENOwY-0006m9-Ci; Thu, 06 Oct 2005 02:09:26 -0400
Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1ENOwX-0006m4-Oz for rddp@megatron.ietf.org; Thu, 06 Oct 2005 02:09:25 -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 CAA05237 for <rddp@ietf.org>; Thu, 6 Oct 2005 02:09:24 -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 1ENP5Z-0006Nx-Qn for rddp@ietf.org; Thu, 06 Oct 2005 02:18:46 -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 j9669MFC025616 for <rddp@ietf.org>; Thu, 6 Oct 2005 02:09:22 -0400 (EDT)
Received: by mxic2.corp.emc.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id <RT6ARF0L>; Thu, 6 Oct 2005 02:09:22 -0400
Message-ID: <F222151D3323874393F83102D614E0557A6F67@CORPUSMX20A.corp.emc.com>
To: rddp@ietf.org
Date: Thu, 06 Oct 2005 02:09:18 -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: 2005.10.5.43
X-PerlMx-Spam: Gauge=, SPAM=4%, Reasons='EMC_BODY_1+ -1, 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: 5d7a7e767f20255fce80fa0b77fb2433
Subject: [rddp] Publication Request: SCTP draft
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 SCTP draft. The PROTO process (cf. draft-ietf-proto-wgchair-doc-shepherding-05.txt) is being used. Here is the PROTO writeup: Stream Control Transmission Protocol (SCTP) Remote Direct Memory Access (RDMA) Direct Data Placement (DDP) Adaptation draft-ietf-rddp-sctp-02.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? Most of the WG is primarily interested in rddp over TCP. There is limited interest in SCTP. The portion of the WG that is interested in SCTP 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 online ID nits checker says everything is ok. 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-ddp, draft-ietf-rddp-rdmap - publication has already been requested. o draft-ietf-tsvwg-sctpsocket, draft-ietf-tsvwg-addip-sctp - I don't know the completion schedule for these tsvwg drafts. 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 This document describes a method to adapt Direct Data Placement (DDP) and Remote Direct Memory Access (RDMA) to Stream Control Transmission Protocol (SCTP) RFC2960 using a generic description found in the RDMA and DDP specifications. This adaption provides a method for two peers to know that each side is performing DDP or RDMA thus enabling hardware acceleration if available. Some implementations may include this adaptation layer within their SCTP implementations to obtain maximum performance but the behavior of SCTP will be unaffected. In order to accomplish this we specify the use of the new adaptation layer indication as defined in the SCTP ADDIP specification. -- Working Group Summary In contrast to the lengthy discussion of how to adapt rddp to TCP, there has been very little controversy over or dissent from this draft's approach for adapting rddp to SCTP. -- Protocol Quality The protocol has been reviewed for the rddp WG by David L. Black. Randy Stewart, an SCTP expert, is a co-author of this draft. ---------------------------------------------------- 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: SCTP draft Black_David