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

Joe Touch <touch@ISI.EDU> Fri, 15 January 2010 16:46 UTC

Return-Path: <touch@ISI.EDU>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1FA9F3A6AFE; Fri, 15 Jan 2010 08:46:03 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.562
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.562 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.038, BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id SmJYGC9E6bWv; Fri, 15 Jan 2010 08:46:01 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id A35053A6B1F; Fri, 15 Jan 2010 08:46:01 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [] ( []) (authenticated bits=0) by (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id o0FGjDUs002239 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NOT); Fri, 15 Jan 2010 08:45:17 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <>
Date: Fri, 15 Jan 2010 08:45:13 -0800
From: Joe Touch <touch@ISI.EDU>
User-Agent: Thunderbird (Windows/20090812)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Wesley Leggette <>
References: <>
In-Reply-To: <>
X-Enigmail-Version: 0.96.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="------------enigBC7FF48A58EE22D443114310"
X-ISI-4-43-8-MailScanner: Found to be clean
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Sat, 16 Jan 2010 09:29:25 -0800
Cc: TSV Area <>, "" <>, "" <>
Subject: Re: [storm] [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: Fri, 15 Jan 2010 16:46:03 -0000

Hi, Wesley,

Wesley Leggette wrote:
> Joe,
> Thank you ;)
> I should start by saying that at this point we have a fully implemented and
> working product, so our overall goal is to sufficiently describe it to allow
> third-party implementations.

It's useful to explain whether these are licensed parties, and the
general terms of the license you expect. I.e., open, free to those who
don't challenge your patents, or for-fee.

> This being said, our current installation base allows for some flexibility
> so it is my hope that by submitting a protocol specification for review we
> can receive constructive criticism which will make it easier and more
> practical for others to implement our protocol.

It's also useful to consider the difference between asking the IETF to
review documentation for a protocol you continue to own, vs. including
modification and/or unification with other protocols.

> My initial plan was to finish an initial draft of our transport and security
> protocols. This email was sent to determine if and where an appropriate
> working group exists which would be interested in reviewing such a thing.

Lars suggested there might be more than one, which is not uncommon.

> However, I see your point and so I suppose the best approach would be to
> attempt, when I submit something, to explain clearly the design goals and
> requirements that led us to go the route we did?

Yes, that's always useful IMO.

> 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.