[storm] Draft status and possible Vancouver meeting cancellation

<david.black@emc.com> Tue, 26 June 2012 17:40 UTC

Return-Path: <david.black@emc.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 BA89511E8072 for <storm@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 26 Jun 2012 10:40:16 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.572
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.572 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.027, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
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 M-f1cGf2VCug for <storm@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 26 Jun 2012 10:40:16 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mexforward.lss.emc.com (hop-nat-141.emc.com [168.159.213.141]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DF3BA21F85FD for <storm@ietf.org>; Tue, 26 Jun 2012 10:40:15 -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-3.4.3/Switch-3.4.3) with ESMTP id q5QHeFnu026877 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for <storm@ietf.org>; Tue, 26 Jun 2012 13:40:15 -0400
Received: from mailhub.lss.emc.com (mailhubhoprd03.lss.emc.com [10.254.221.145]) by hop04-l1d11-si03.isus.emc.com (RSA Interceptor) for <storm@ietf.org>; Tue, 26 Jun 2012 13:40:02 -0400
Received: from mxhub34.corp.emc.com (mxhub34.corp.emc.com [10.254.93.82]) by mailhub.lss.emc.com (Switch-3.4.3/Switch-3.4.3) with ESMTP id q5QHe1GV008699 for <storm@ietf.org>; Tue, 26 Jun 2012 13:40:02 -0400
Received: from mx15a.corp.emc.com ([169.254.1.189]) by mxhub34.corp.emc.com ([::1]) with mapi; Tue, 26 Jun 2012 13:40:01 -0400
From: <david.black@emc.com>
To: <storm@ietf.org>
Importance: high
X-Priority: 1
Date: Tue, 26 Jun 2012 13:40:01 -0400
Thread-Topic: Draft status and possible Vancouver meeting cancellation
Thread-Index: Ac1TwrZo2CnyF3rWQxqnmyA1qRlKgw==
Message-ID: <8D3D17ACE214DC429325B2B98F3AE71208C14A49@MX15A.corp.emc.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
acceptlanguage: en-US
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-EMM-MHVC: 1
Subject: [storm] Draft status and possible Vancouver meeting cancellation
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: Tue, 26 Jun 2012 17:40:16 -0000

Here's what one of your WG chairs believes the status of the WG's drafts
are.  Based on this, your WG chairs are seriously considering cancelling
the Vancouver meeting of the storm WG, as there doesn't seem to be
anything here that has a compelling need for scarce IETF meeting time.

If anyone disagrees and thinks we should meet in Vancouver, please speak
up quickly with an explanation of why.

-- iSCSI

Area Director review comments have been received on both the
consolidated and new features (-iscsi-sam) drafts.  New versions of both
drafts will be needed before IETF Last Call, but the revisions to the
new features draft are rather minor.  The revisions to the consolidated
draft will be more extensive, as our new AD (Martin) did a complete
text review, and found a bunch of things - most of them are areas where
tighter/clearer language is needed to capture existing requirements (that
implementations already meet.  Expect an email to the list soon explaining
the proposed changes to normative text (as opposed to editorial cleanups).

One notable exception is that the recent publication of RFC 6648 requires
that we take a hard look at the X- and X# extension text keys, and hence
also the related Z- and Z# authentication extension text keys.  There has
been some behind the scenes discussion that will result in an email of
proposed changes to the list - these changes *will not break* any existing
implementations, and please wait for that separate email before engaging
in that discussion on the list.

All of these topics appear amenable to email resolution.

-- iSCSI MIB

One of the authors recently changed jobs, which has delayed things.  The
MIB Doctor Review has been received, and unlike the MIB Doctor Reviews
that I'm used to, this one proposed a number of MIB functionality
enhancements, all of which appear to be relatively minor.  The next step
is for the authors to summarize those enhancements in an email to the
list, soon please (hint).  

-- iSER

This is our "problem child" draft as it was supposed to be out of the WG
on its way to RFC Publication 6 months ago, and has been caught by a
couple of last minute issues.  I sent a separate email earlier today on
what needs to be done to close the current issue that is keeping the iSER
draft in the WG - please read and respond to that, but I believe that can
be worked out via email.

-- RDMA Extensions

This draft is supposed to go to Working Group Last Call this month (June).
That's been delayed by the iSER draft bouncing back into the WG after my
first attempt to submit it for RFC publication.  Nonetheless, your WG
chairs (Tom and myself) expect (well at least hope) to post our reviews
and comments on this draft to the list later this week.

I don't think the possible issues with this draft justify a Vancouver meeting. 

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
----------------------------------------------------