Re: [storm] [nfsv4] [tsv-area] Application protocol for distributed storage

Joe Touch <touch@ISI.EDU> Sat, 16 January 2010 06:12 UTC

Return-Path: <touch@ISI.EDU>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 937B53A68D2; Fri, 15 Jan 2010 22:12:55 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.569
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.569 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.030, BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id h1CwXG6VXSI6; Fri, 15 Jan 2010 22:12:52 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 623733A680D; Fri, 15 Jan 2010 22:12:51 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [] ( []) (authenticated bits=0) by (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id o0G6CRSO007934 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NOT); Fri, 15 Jan 2010 22:12:31 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <>
Date: Fri, 15 Jan 2010 22:12:27 -0800
From: Joe Touch <touch@ISI.EDU>
User-Agent: Thunderbird (Windows/20090812)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Nicolas Williams <>
References: <> <> <20100115221215.GJ1061@Sun.COM>
In-Reply-To: <20100115221215.GJ1061@Sun.COM>
X-Enigmail-Version: 0.96.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-ISI-4-43-8-MailScanner: Found to be clean
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Sat, 16 Jan 2010 09:29:25 -0800
Cc: Wesley Leggette <>, TSV Area <>, "" <>, "" <>
Subject: Re: [storm] [nfsv4] [tsv-area] Application protocol for distributed storage
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: Storage Maintenance WG <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 16 Jan 2010 06:12:56 -0000

Hash: SHA1

Hi, all,

Nicolas Williams wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 15, 2010 at 10:51:39AM -0600, Wesley Leggette wrote:
>>>> When we are ready to submit something (it would be a submission which
>>>> documents what we have currently implemented) is there a working group that
>>>> would be appropriate, or should we just submit an I-D directly?
>>> It's always easiest to submit an individual I-D first, then see where to
>>> place it, AFAICT.
>> Then we will do that for now, taking into account your other suggestions.
> The process roughly goes like this:
>  - Submit some individual submission Internet-Drafts (e.g.,
>    draft-leggette-my-distributed-storage-protocol-00).

- - figure out whether that doc should be handled in an existing WG
	- this can happen by review, or by making a brief presentation
	on one of the area meetings at the next IETF

BoFs can be useful if the result suggests significant effort is needed
(new WG or substantial recharter of existing WG), but this intermediate
step is useful in getting feedback.


>  - Request a BoF meeting at the next IETF meeting.
>    The goal of the BoF should be to determine IETF interest in your
>    proposals.  Possible outcomes of a BoF include:
>     - a second BoF is needed;
>     - there's no interest in chartering a WG or re-chartering an
>       existing one; you will be able to try again once more, and you
>       will still be able to proceed with the individual submission
>       track;
>       (There's the possibility in this case that the IESG will
>       ultimately oppose standards-track publication, in which case
>       you'll end up with informational or experimental RFCs, or perhaps
>       you'd abandon the effort.)
>     - a WG will be chartered to host the work;
>     - an existing WG will be re-chartered to host the work.
> It will help to have an introductory I-D.  Do disclose mind IPR
> dislosure rules.  Do familiarize yourself with the IETF standards
> process.
> Nico
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (MingW32)