[storm] Combined iSCSI draft - Proposed Standard, not Draft Standard

<david.black@emc.com> Mon, 14 March 2011 22:53 UTC

Return-Path: <david.black@emc.com>
X-Original-To: storm@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: storm@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EA3BF3A6BCB for <storm@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 14 Mar 2011 15:53:12 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -106.572
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-106.572 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.027, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id OmwqRy9lVZOF for <storm@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 14 Mar 2011 15:53:11 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mexforward.lss.emc.com (mexforward.lss.emc.com []) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3E9363A6E0E for <storm@ietf.org>; Mon, 14 Mar 2011 15:53:10 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from hop04-l1d11-si01.isus.emc.com (HOP04-L1D11-SI01.isus.emc.com []) by mexforward.lss.emc.com (Switch-3.4.3/Switch-3.4.3) with ESMTP id p2EMsY79020071 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for <storm@ietf.org>; Mon, 14 Mar 2011 18:54:34 -0400
Received: from mailhub.lss.emc.com (mailhubhoprd04.lss.emc.com []) by hop04-l1d11-si01.isus.emc.com (RSA Interceptor) for <storm@ietf.org>; Mon, 14 Mar 2011 18:54:23 -0400
Received: from mxhub16.corp.emc.com (mxhub16.corp.emc.com []) by mailhub.lss.emc.com (Switch-3.4.3/Switch-3.4.3) with ESMTP id p2EMsMcr027576 for <storm@ietf.org>; Mon, 14 Mar 2011 18:54:22 -0400
Received: from mx14a.corp.emc.com ([]) by mxhub16.corp.emc.com ([]) with mapi; Mon, 14 Mar 2011 18:54:22 -0400
From: <david.black@emc.com>
To: <storm@ietf.org>
Date: Mon, 14 Mar 2011 18:54:20 -0400
Thread-Topic: Combined iSCSI draft - Proposed Standard, not Draft Standard
Thread-Index: AcvimsEgH1bsgMGiRTm0W9BBg6Y6pQ==
Message-ID: <7C4DFCE962635144B8FAE8CA11D0BF1E03E5D3E3B8@MX14A.corp.emc.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
acceptlanguage: en-US
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Subject: [storm] Combined iSCSI draft - Proposed Standard, not Draft Standard
X-BeenThere: storm@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: Storage Maintenance WG <storm.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/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: Mon, 14 Mar 2011 22:53:13 -0000

We have the following milestone on our charter that needs some attention:

Working Group decision on whether to seek Draft Standard RFC status for the combined iSCSI draft (3720bis). 

Based on level of activity and interest that I've observed on and off the list, I don't see much interest in doing the interoperability report work that would be required to take this draft through the format IETF process required for Draft Standard status.

Speaking for myself, I don't have the cycles available to do the work that would be required to oversee this process, and I don't believe that iSCSI is experiencing the sort of interoperability problems in practice that this work would help with.

Therefore I believe that the rough consensus of the storm WG is that the combined iSCSI draft (draft-ietf-storm-iscsi-cons) should be published as a Proposed Standard RFC (same status as RFC 3720 and RFC 5048, among others).

Anyone who disagrees should post to the list and explain why they disagree with this course of action.

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