[storm] Quebec storm agenda

<david.black@emc.com> Sat, 23 July 2011 00:01 UTC

Return-Path: <david.black@emc.com>
X-Original-To: storm@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: storm@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B592F21F8C41 for <storm@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 22 Jul 2011 17:01:01 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -105.467
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-105.467 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=1.132, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id sZceX+0cSMsu for <storm@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 22 Jul 2011 17:01:01 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mexforward.lss.emc.com (mexforward.lss.emc.com []) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2918721F8C39 for <storm@ietf.org>; Fri, 22 Jul 2011 17:01:00 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from hop04-l1d11-si03.isus.emc.com (HOP04-L1D11-SI03.isus.emc.com []) by mexforward.lss.emc.com (Switch-3.4.3/Switch-3.4.3) with ESMTP id p6N00w0x008638 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for <storm@ietf.org>; Fri, 22 Jul 2011 20:00:58 -0400
Received: from mailhub.lss.emc.com (mailhub.lss.emc.com []) by hop04-l1d11-si03.isus.emc.com (RSA Interceptor) for <storm@ietf.org>; Fri, 22 Jul 2011 20:00:48 -0400
Received: from mxhub05.corp.emc.com (mxhub05.corp.emc.com []) by mailhub.lss.emc.com (Switch-3.4.3/Switch-3.4.3) with ESMTP id p6N00mCc026388 for <storm@ietf.org>; Fri, 22 Jul 2011 20:00:48 -0400
Received: from mx14a.corp.emc.com ([]) by mxhub05.corp.emc.com ([]) with mapi; Fri, 22 Jul 2011 20:00:48 -0400
From: <david.black@emc.com>
To: <storm@ietf.org>
Date: Fri, 22 Jul 2011 20:00:45 -0400
Thread-Topic: Quebec storm agenda
Thread-Index: AcxIy5IztHFejigtTkON8eBso3+ULA==
Message-ID: <7C4DFCE962635144B8FAE8CA11D0BF1E058948BD1D@MX14A.corp.emc.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
acceptlanguage: en-US
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Subject: [storm] Quebec storm agenda
X-BeenThere: storm@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Storage Maintenance WG <storm.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/storm>, <mailto:storm-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/storm>
List-Post: <mailto:storm@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:storm-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/storm>, <mailto:storm-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 23 Jul 2011 00:01:01 -0000

The major v1 -> v2 change is updated draft version numbers.  No change to time slots or responsible presenters.

IETF storm (STORage Maintenance) WG
Meeting agenda (v2)
Tuesday, July 26, 2011, 1710-1810
Quebec City, QC, Canada

Administrivia, agenda bashing, etc. - 10 min
		David L. Black, EMC & Tom Talpey, Microsoft (WG co-chairs)
	Blue sheets
	Note Well

Draft status - 5 min
		David L. Black, EMC (co-chair)
	iFCP update and associated iFCP MIB update - Published as RFCs 6172 and 6173
	MPA update - Publication Requested, AD is processing
	iSCSI drafts (Consolidated, SAM and MIB)
	iSER draft
	RDMA extensions (not currently a WG draft)

iSCSI Drafts (draft-ietf-storm-iscsi-cons-03, draft-ietf-storm-iscsi-sam-03) - 10 min
		Fred Knight, NetApp & WG co-chairs
	Issues that need attention from ongoing WG Last Call, if any
	Status of engagement of iSCSI implementers to review these drafts

iSCSI MIB draft (draft-ietf-storm-iscsimib-00) - 5 min
	If time needed, status report under "Draft status" above may suffice

iSER draft (draft-ietf-storm-iser-02) - 10 min
		Mike Ko, HuaweiSymantec (on behalf of draft authors)
	Summarize known topics & issues that need attention

RDMA Protocol Extensions Draft (draft-ietf-storm-rdmap-ext-01) - 20 min
		Hemal Shah, Broadcom (on behalf of draft authors)
	NOTE: Despite its filename, this is not an official storm WG draft.

	Discussion of draft contents and rationale.
	Question: Should WG should adopt this draft as a work item.