Re: [rddp] STORM BOF - Draft minutes
Black_David@emc.com Tue, 07 April 2009 13:03 UTC
Return-Path: <Black_David@emc.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 96F863A68D1; Tue, 7 Apr 2009 06:03:05 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.552
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.552 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.047, BAYES_00=-2.599, 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 28O6ebaJ1O+i; Tue, 7 Apr 2009 06:03:04 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mexforward.lss.emc.com (mexforward.lss.emc.com [128.222.32.20]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C86C13A6D8E; Tue, 7 Apr 2009 06:03:03 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from hop04-l1d11-si03.isus.emc.com (HOP04-L1D11-SI03.isus.emc.com [10.254.111.23]) by mexforward.lss.emc.com (Switch-3.2.5/Switch-3.1.7) with ESMTP id n37D481K015414 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Tue, 7 Apr 2009 09:04:08 -0400 (EDT)
From: Black_David@emc.com
Received: from mailhub.lss.emc.com (numailhub.lss.emc.com [10.254.144.15]) by hop04-l1d11-si03.isus.emc.com (Tablus Interceptor); Tue, 7 Apr 2009 09:03:48 -0400
Received: from corpussmtp3.corp.emc.com (corpussmtp3.corp.emc.com [10.254.64.53]) by mailhub.lss.emc.com (Switch-3.3.2mp/Switch-3.3.2mp) with ESMTP id n37D3TJo024162; Tue, 7 Apr 2009 09:03:43 -0400
Received: from CORPUSMX80A.corp.emc.com ([10.254.89.202]) by corpussmtp3.corp.emc.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Tue, 7 Apr 2009 09:03:39 -0400
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5
Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Date: Tue, 07 Apr 2009 09:03:38 -0400
Message-ID: <9FA859626025B64FBC2AF149D97C944A025B0327@CORPUSMX80A.corp.emc.com>
In-reply-to: <9FA859626025B64FBC2AF149D97C944A023A30C2@CORPUSMX80A.corp.emc.com>
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
Thread-Topic: STORM BOF - Draft minutes
Thread-Index: AcmumI819U1O0IOkRweSmVlG4nxrWwI50gvQ
References: <9FA859626025B64FBC2AF149D97C944A023A30C2@CORPUSMX80A.corp.emc.com>
To: ips@ietf.org, rddp@ietf.org
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 07 Apr 2009 13:03:39.0853 (UTC) FILETIME=[45536FD0:01C9B781]
X-EMM-EM: Active
Cc: imss@ietf.org, Black_David@emc.com
Subject: Re: [rddp] STORM BOF - Draft minutes
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: Tue, 07 Apr 2009 13:03:05 -0000
Having seen no objection to (or even comment on) this on the list: > The overall conclusion of the BOF is that a new STORM > (STORage Maintenance) WG should be formed to pursue > essentially the program of work in the draft charter that > I sent to the lists earlier. There will be a new > storm@ietf.org mailing list for this WG. the conclusion of the BOF is confirmed, and I will proceed to put together an actual proposal to form a WG. The next steps will be to put the new storm@ietf.org mailing list in place and produce an actual draft charter with milestones. The draft charter will take a little while (week or two) to appear for comment, as I first want to contact potential draft authors to ensure that the milestone dates are somewhat plausible before putting them into the draft charter. Anyone interesting is being a WG co-chair (multiple co-chairs are likely) should contact our responsible Area Director, Lars Eggert [lars.eggert@nokia.com] (cc:'ing me would be appreciated, but is not necessary), as appointment of WG chairs is up to the Area Directors. I will also make minor edits to the draft minutes and submit them to the proceedings. Thanks, --David > -----Original Message----- > From: Black, David > Sent: Friday, March 27, 2009 12:58 AM > To: ips@ietf.org; rddp@ietf.org > Cc: imss@ietf.org; Black, David > Subject: STORM BOF - Draft minutes > > See below - these are a bit on the long side, as a lot of > ground was covered in the BOF. Many thanks to Paul Koning > for helping to take notes. > > We did not actually have a jabber scribe providing running > commentary in the jabber room - the assumption/hope was that > everyone in the jabber room was listening to the audio feed. > If that was a bad assumption, please send me an email > directly, and we'll do better in the future. > > The overall conclusion of the BOF is that a new STORM > (STORage Maintenance) WG should be formed to pursue > essentially the program of work in the draft charter that > I sent to the lists earlier. There will be a new > storm@ietf.org mailing list for this WG. > > As all decisions in IETF meetings are confirmed on mailing > lists, now is the time to speak up if: > - anyone thinks that a WG should not be formed, or > - anyone thinks that one or more of the work items on the > draft charter (see minutes) should not be done. > I will also be contacting some people directly to try to > ensure that there is at least one Internet-Draft author > for each work item. > > Please also provide any other corrections to the minutes > (either to the list or directly to me). > > Thanks, > --David > > > Transport Area (TSV) BOF: STORM (STORage Maintenance) > THURSDAY, March 26, 2009, 0900-1130 Morning Session I > IETF San Francisco Meetings > ======================================================= > > BOF chair: David L. Black, EMC (black_david@emc.com) > > Minutes - Initial Draft > ---------------------- > > --- Administrivia ---- > - Note Well (projected) > - Blue Sheets (circulated) > - Scribes (minutes, jabber) > Jabber room was initially not functioning, but was fixed shortly > after BOF started > - Purpose of BOF: Question #1: Should an IETF WG be formed? > > --- Agenda Bashing --- > Agenda was bashed to add discussion of possibly related work in T11 > (Fibre Channel Standards Organization). The T11 vice chair > (and acting > chair) was present to discuss the item. > > -- Draft charter: Initial presentation --- > Charter presented, no text bashed. > > Discussion of possible iSCSI-related work > - Consolidated iSCSI RFC > - Whether to take iSCSI to Draft Standard status, including > implementation report > - SAM-4 feature addition > > Extensive discussion indicated clear strong interest in the SAM-4 > feature addition and interest in consolidating the iSCSI RFCs into a > single document that could go to Draft Standard status. The resulting > plan is to have two drafts: > 1) An rfc3720bis draft that consolidates and prunes the > current iSCSI RFCs based on current implementations. The > intent is that this draft be suitable for Draft > Standard status. > 2) A "new features" draft that adds (in a backwards compatible > fashion) minor new features, starting with the new SAM-4 > features. This draft would be intended for Proposed Standard > status, and all of its contents would be optional > and negotiable > (e.g., via text keys at iSCSI login). > The "new features" draft would not be limited to SAM-4 > features, but all > additions would need to be minor. IETF procedures would > allow everything > to be rolled into one document that could be taken to Draft Standard > status after a 6 month waiting period at Proposed Standard, > but the sense > of the discussion was that the above two-document plan is the better > course of action, and that only widely implemented features in current > implementations should be considered for a Draft Standard RFC. > > The BOF chair prefers that the decision as to whether to take iSCSI to > Draft Standard status be deferred, and will write charter > text to allow > this, but not require it. Among the reasons for this are the > amount of > work involved and potential interactions with other RFC documents that > are currently at Proposed Standard status. > > It seems to make better sense to specify iSCSI support for all new > SAM-4 features (as other SCSI transports, such as FCP [SCSI over Fibre > Channel] and SAS [Serial Attach SCSI]) have done, rather than only > specify selected SAM-4 features. iSCSI could then define > multiple text > keys to allow support for these features (or groups of them) to be > separately negotiated. > > IETF coordination with T10 is planned to be handled informally. At > least David Black (BOF chair) and Fred Knight (one of the > presenters on > the SAM-4 topic) are active T10 participants who can facilitate this > coordination. The formal IETF mechanisms for liaison with other > organizations appear unlikely to be needed. > > --- FC encapsulation-related work (possible) --- > - iFCP Address Translation obsolescence > - FC(IP) IP Protocol Number > > Both of these appear to be good ideas. The BOF chair is prepared to > write the Internet-Draft for the first item, and the second item is > for the WG to investigate whether IP Protocol number 133 (allocated > for Fibre Channel in 2000) is unused and should be returned to IANA > for future reassignment. > > - Related T11 activity (RDDP over Ethernet) > > T11 is the standards organization for Fibre Channel. A proposal has > been submitted to T11 for it to work on hosting the RDDP (aka iWARP) > protocols on Ethernet directly via IP, see T11 document 09-141v0: > http://www.t11.org/ftp/t11/admin/project_proposals/09-141v0.pdf > > The design proposed in that document appears to require allocation of > an IP Protocol number. That can only be done by the IESG, and appears > unlikely, as the proposed DCRP protocol is not intended to run over > public networks like the Internet, has no congestion control and no > security. UDP encapsulation may be a more plausible way forward, but > there is a track record of protocols intended for closed networks > "escaping" into the broader Internet. > > The BOF chair (David Black) is also a member of the IETF Transport > Directorate and a T11 participant - he will take these concerns to the > T11 meetings next week and express a desire for significant > consultation > between T11 and the IETF before T11 moves this work moves forward. > The responsible Transport AD (Lars Eggert) concurs with and supports > this course of action. > > --- RDDP-related work (possible) --- > - MPA startup change for MPI > > There has been a lot of support for this relatively contained > proposed work item on the mailing list. > > --- iSER-related work (possible) --- > - Clarifications arising from InfiniBand and other use of iSER > > There has been support on the mailing list for this proposed work > item. > > --- Any other proposed work items --- > Nothing additional proposed. > > --- Draft charter: Text bashing, round 2 --- > No further bashing. > > --- WG formation discussion --- > Clear interest in forming a WG, with a desire to limit travel. > > Work item discussion took a bit longer. Different people are > interested in different work items. A discussion of whether any > work items should be deleted from the initial list in the charter > did not identify any to be deleted, but acknowledged the BOF chair's > preference to not have the charter commit up front to taking iSCSI > to Draft Standard status. With that change, the "rough consensus" > of the meeting (supported by some comments in the jabber room and > emails sent to the list) is that a WG should be formed to take on > essentially the plan of work in the draft charter. > > Discussion about travel and meetings reflected a concern about > travel in current economic conditions and a desire to conduct as > much work as possible on the mailing list. Beyond that, face-to- > face meetings are sometimes needed to resolve issues and make > progress - in line with current IETF practice, if a meeting is > needed during an IETF meeting week, it'll be scheduled without > significant consideration of where that IETF meeting is located. > The expected default for the WG will be to not meet face-to-face > unless there are clear issues that require a meeting. > > Interim meetings were suggested as a possibility, but there does > not appear to be a geographic concentration of interested people; > the BOF chair is aware of likely participants on both coasts of > the US, China, Switzerland and Israel. Iceland was half-heartedly > suggested as approximately equally inconvenient for all concerned. > > --- Mailing List Usage --- > > Organization of the BOF was conducted on the existing ips@ietf.org > and rddp@ietf.org mailing lists, with the imss@ietf.org list cc:'d. > > After some discussion, the mailing list plan going forward is: > - Form new storm@ietf.org mailing list for new STORM WG. > - Announce this list on the IMSS, IPS and RDDP lists, inviting > people to subscribe to the new STORM list. > - No further STORM-related activity on the IMSS list after this > announcement (and perhaps a few reminders). > - Set IPS and RDDP auto-responders to indicate existence of STORM > list. > - After some period of time, close down the RDDP list, ask the > IETF secretariat to set up an auto-responder for email to > rddp@ietf.org indicating that storm@ietf.org should be used. > - Leave IPS list open with auto-responders modified as above. > - Leave IMSS list as it currently is. > > --- Milestones --- > In order to have a charter that can be approved, milestones are > needed. A small amount of discussion yielded the following > guidelines: > - Small stuff (e.g., MPA fix) should make it to Working > Group Last Call > (WG LC) this year > - Other larger things (e.g., SAM-4) may need until latter part of next > year to reach WG LC. > - iSCSI: The consolidated iSCSI draft may be a 2 year > project, but there > should be a decent draft in about 1 year. > - The charter will allow lazy evaluation of decision about whether to > take iSCSI to Draft Standard, and hence not propose any > milestones > for that. > > --- Next steps --- > - BOF chair to revise charter (with milestones) and send to mailing > lists for review. > - Assuming no significant objections to WG creation are raised, the > secretariat will be asked to create a storm@ietf.org > mailing list. > - The actual storm WG formation request will probably go to the Area > Director (Lars) for presentation to the IESG in about a month. > > 14 names on blue sheet, about 8 additional jabber room participants. >
- [rddp] STORM BOF - Draft minutes Black_David
- Re: [rddp] STORM BOF - Draft minutes Black_David