[storm] storm WG draft status

"Black, David" <david.black@emc.com> Fri, 26 April 2013 19:26 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 8CEDC21F9953 for <storm@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 26 Apr 2013 12:26:43 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -101.3
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-101.3 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=1.300, 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 H1nkXxnvfn-H for <storm@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 26 Apr 2013 12:26:43 -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 D45B721F9952 for <storm@ietf.org>; Fri, 26 Apr 2013 12:26:42 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from hop04-l1d11-si02.isus.emc.com (HOP04-L1D11-SI02.isus.emc.com [10.254.111.55]) by mexforward.lss.emc.com (Switch-3.4.3/Switch-3.4.3) with ESMTP id r3QJQfxQ002667 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for <storm@ietf.org>; Fri, 26 Apr 2013 15:26:41 -0400
Received: from mailhub.lss.emc.com (mailhubhoprd06.lss.emc.com [10.254.222.130]) by hop04-l1d11-si02.isus.emc.com (RSA Interceptor) for <storm@ietf.org>; Fri, 26 Apr 2013 15:26:27 -0400
Received: from mxhub27.corp.emc.com (mxhub27.corp.emc.com [10.254.110.183]) by mailhub.lss.emc.com (Switch-3.4.3/Switch-3.4.3) with ESMTP id r3QJQR2t010038 for <storm@ietf.org>; Fri, 26 Apr 2013 15:26:27 -0400
Received: from mx15a.corp.emc.com ([169.254.1.81]) by mxhub27.corp.emc.com ([10.254.110.183]) with mapi; Fri, 26 Apr 2013 15:26:27 -0400
From: "Black, David" <david.black@emc.com>
To: "storm@ietf.org" <storm@ietf.org>
Date: Fri, 26 Apr 2013 15:26:25 -0400
Thread-Topic: storm WG draft status
Thread-Index: Ac5Cs/GIxn6hUssvQGqIdf08+NbGkA==
Message-ID: <8D3D17ACE214DC429325B2B98F3AE71293F3BFC2@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] storm WG draft status
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: Fri, 26 Apr 2013 19:26:43 -0000

It's time for another one of my occasional "where are we?" messages
on the storm WG's drafts.

1) iSCSI consolidated draft.  We're still working through the "punch list"
of things that need attention as a result of IESG evaluation.  Expect to
see more list traffic soon on some of these.  There will be at least one
more version of this draft, possibly two to get everything.

2) iSCSI SAM (new features) draft.  A new version of this draft should
appear in the next few days that resolves all of the IETF Last Call
comments.  That version will need another WG Last Call, primarily to
check that the iSCSIProtocolLevel text key, and its associated new
registry are specified correctly.

3) iSCSI MIB draft.  The IETF Last Call and MIB Doctor review comments have
been resolved in the latest version.  It's waiting for the iSCSI SAM draft
because the MIB's compliance provisions depend on the value of the
iSCSIProtocolLevel text key.

4) iSER draft.  All of the IETF Last Call comments on this draft were
resolved back in January except for the IPsec profile update ... and
that's now turned into a "pull the thread and the whole sleeve falls
off" experience that's going to require another draft (next item).

5) After working through the IPsec profile situation around iSER, where
we were headed for two different IPsec profiles for iSCSI/iSER vs.
iWARP, it's (unfortunately) become apparent that the right thing to do
is update the IPsec profile in RFC 3723 across the board.  Moreover,
it's also become clear that the iSCSI consolidated draft is not a good
or appropriate vehicle for that broad an update, so a new draft will be
needed.  Expect to see a -00 version of that draft surface in the next
couple of weeks.  As was the case with the RDDP registries draft, this
draft will be headed into WG Last Call in short order, with a goal of
getting it out of the WG by the end of May.
The iSCSI consolidated draft and the iSER draft will need normative
references to this draft (plus associated text changes), and the iSCSI
SAM draft will pick this draft's changes up indirectly via its existing
normative reference to the iSCSI consolidated draft.

6) That leaves the RDMA Extensions draft, whose authors have been patiently
waiting for the above to complete.  I now intend to send that draft to
WG Last Call by the first part of June (I want to review it before then).

I offer my usual apology for delays caused by my day job having the
temerity to interfere with my IETF activity :-).  Please feel free to
send questions to the list or directly to me.

Thanks,
--David (storm WG co-chair)
----------------------------------------------------
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
----------------------------------------------------