Re: [storm] Publication requested for RDDP registries draft
"Hemal Shah" <hemal@broadcom.com> Thu, 17 November 2011 17:49 UTC
Return-Path: <hemal@broadcom.com>
X-Original-To: storm@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: storm@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 322311F0C6F for <storm@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 17 Nov 2011 09:49:03 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.598
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.598 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id s9sRMEfkV1Au for <storm@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 17 Nov 2011 09:49:01 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mms1.broadcom.com (mms1.broadcom.com [216.31.210.17]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D80F81F0C38 for <storm@ietf.org>; Thu, 17 Nov 2011 09:49:01 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [10.9.200.133] by mms1.broadcom.com with ESMTP (Broadcom SMTP Relay (Email Firewall v6.3.2)); Thu, 17 Nov 2011 09:56:34 -0800
X-Server-Uuid: 02CED230-5797-4B57-9875-D5D2FEE4708A
Received: from IRVEXCHCCR02.corp.ad.broadcom.com ([10.9.200.184]) by IRVEXCHHUB02.corp.ad.broadcom.com ([10.9.200.133]) with mapi; Thu, 17 Nov 2011 09:48:14 -0800
From: Hemal Shah <hemal@broadcom.com>
To: "david.black@emc.com" <david.black@emc.com>, "storm@ietf.org" <storm@ietf.org>
Date: Thu, 17 Nov 2011 09:48:39 -0800
Thread-Topic: Publication requested for RDDP registries draft
Thread-Index: AcyjXnD7tKe52bxMQjyM3p3kBDH4XwBZqAoA
Message-ID: <76DBE161893C324BA6D4BB507EE4C384959EF01088@IRVEXCHCCR02.corp.ad.broadcom.com>
References: <7C4DFCE962635144B8FAE8CA11D0BF1E059C8E183A@MX14A.corp.emc.com>
In-Reply-To: <7C4DFCE962635144B8FAE8CA11D0BF1E059C8E183A@MX14A.corp.emc.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
acceptlanguage: en-US
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-WSS-ID: 62DB95585WO509435-01-01
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_76DBE161893C324BA6D4BB507EE4C384959EF01088IRVEXCHCCR02c_"
Subject: Re: [storm] Publication requested for RDDP registries draft
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: Thu, 17 Nov 2011 17:49:03 -0000
David, Sorry to respond late to this thread! I have several comments on the IANA registries for RDDP draft before it goes to the publication. 1. The current draft does not include the RDMA Message Opcodes defined in the RDMA protocol extensions draft (Figure 3 of http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-storm-rdmap-ext-01.txt). I would like to see them included in the draft below. 2. The RDMA protocol extensions draft defines several Atomic operations that are identified by Atomic operations codes (Figure 5 of http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-storm-rdmap-ext-01.txt). I believe it will be good to add them to the IANA registries for RDDP draft. 3. For any new opcodes in the future, do we need to update both relevant RFCs and registry specs? Or, registry spec only? If the opcode does not change any semantics in the RFC, then it would make sense to only update the registry spec. Regards, Hemal -----Original Message----- From: storm-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:storm-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of david.black@emc.com Sent: Monday, November 14, 2011 10:19 PM To: storm@ietf.org Subject: [storm] Publication requested for RDDP registries draft I just submitted the request to publish the RDDP registries draft as a Proposed Standard RFC. Here's the PROTO writeup: PROTO writeup: IANA Registries for the RDDP (Remote Direct Data Placement) Protocols draft-ietf-storm-rddp-registries-00.txt Requested Publication Status: Proposed Standard PROTO shepherd: David L. Black (STORM WG Co-Chair) ------------------------------------------------------------------------ (1.a) Who is the Document Shepherd for this document? Has the Document Shepherd personally reviewed this version of the document and, in particular, does he or she believe this version is ready for forwarding to the IESG for publication? David L. Black (david.black@emc.com) is the Document Shepherd and a co-author of the draft. The Document Shepherd has reviewed this version of the document and believes that it is ready for forwarding to the IESG for publication. (1.b) Has the document had adequate review both from key WG members and from key non-WG members? Does the Document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews that have been performed? The document has had sufficient review from key WG members. The document has been prepared quickly, but has essentially no new technical content, as the document creates and populates IANA registries based on values specified in existing RFCs. (1.c) Does the Document Shepherd have concerns that the document needs more review from a particular or broader perspective, e.g., security, operational complexity, someone familiar with AAA, internationalization or XML? No. (1.d) Does the Document Shepherd have any specific concerns or issues with this document that the Responsible Area Director and/or the IESG should be aware of? For example, perhaps he or she is uncomfortable with certain parts of the document, or has concerns whether there really is a need for it. In any event, if the WG has discussed those issues and has indicated that it still wishes to advance the document, detail those concerns here. Has an IPR disclosure related to this document been filed? If so, please include a reference to the disclosure and summarize the WG discussion and conclusion on this issue. 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? The WG is largely silent, but the Document Shepherd believes that the need for this document is clearly understood by the WG as a whole, and no objections have been raised. (1.f) Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme discontent? If so, please summarise the areas of conflict in separate email messages to the Responsible Area Director. (It should be in a separate email because this questionnaire is entered into the ID Tracker.) No. (1.g) Has the Document Shepherd personally verified that the document satisfies all ID nits? (See the Internet-Drafts Checklist and http://tools.ietf.org/tools/idnits/). Boilerplate checks are not enough; this check needs to be thorough. Yes. Has the document met all formal review criteria it needs to, such as the MIB Doctor, media type and URI type reviews? N/A. (1.h) Has the document split its references into normative and informative? Yes. Are there normative references to documents that are not ready for advancement or are otherwise in an unclear state? If such normative references exist, what is the strategy for their completion? Are there normative references that are downward references, as described in [RFC3967]? If so, list these downward references to support the Area Director in the Last Call procedure for them [RFC3967]. There are no issues with the normative references. (1.i) Has the Document Shepherd verified that the document IANA consideration section exists and is consistent with the body of the document? If the document specifies protocol extensions, are reservations requested in appropriate IANA registries? Are the IANA registries clearly identified? If the document creates a new registry, does it define the proposed initial contents of the registry and an allocation procedure for future registrations? Does it suggest a reasonable name for the new registry? See [RFC5226]. If the document describes an Expert Review process has Shepherd conferred with the Responsible Area Director so that the IESG can appoint the needed Expert during the IESG Evaluation? Almost the entire document is IANA Considerations text that creates new registries. The new contents and allocation procedure are defined, and the registries have reasonable names. The Expert Review process is not used. (1.j) Has the Document Shepherd verified that sections of the document that are written in a formal language, such as XML code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, etc., validate correctly in an automated checker? N/A, (1.k) The IESG approval announcement includes a Document Announcement Write-Up. Please provide such a Document Announcement Write-Up? Recent examples can be found in the "Action" announcements for approved documents. The approval announcement contains the following sections: Technical Summary The original RFCs that specified the RDDP protocol suite did not create IANA registries for RDDP error codes, operation codes and function codes. Extensions to the RDDP protocols now require these registries to be created. This memo creates the RDDP registries, populates them with values defined in the original RDDP RFCs, and provides guidance to IANA for future assignment of code points within these registries. Working Group Summary Nothing exceptional to note. Document Quality There are multiple implementations of the RDDP protocols to which these new registries apply. Thanks, --David ---------------------------------------------------- David L. Black, Distinguished Engineer EMC Corporation, 176 South St., Hopkinton, MA 01748 +1 (508) 293-7953 FAX: +1 (508) 293-7786 david.black@emc.com Mobile: +1 (978) 394-7754 ---------------------------------------------------- _______________________________________________ storm mailing list storm@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/storm
- [storm] Publication requested for RDDP registries… david.black
- Re: [storm] Publication requested for RDDP regist… Hemal Shah
- Re: [storm] Publication requested for RDDP regist… david.black
- Re: [storm] Publication requested for RDDP regist… Hemal Shah
- Re: [storm] Publication requested for RDDP regist… david.black
- Re: [storm] Publication requested for RDDP regist… Hemal Shah