Re: [storm] Publication requested for RDDP registries draft

[<[e-mail]>]

Hemal,

No change is needed to the RDDP registries draft, as all three of your items belong elsewhere:

1: The new RDMAP message opcodes will be added to the IANA registry by the RDMAP protocol
extensions draft when it is published as an RFC.
2: The RDMAP protocol extensions draft is the appropriate place to create a new
Atomic operations code IANA registry for RDMAP.
3: In the future, only the IANA registry is updated.  Any standards track RFC can add
      new registry entries and even create new registries.  The IANA registries are the
      definitive reference; the RDDP registries draft is needed only because the registries
      weren't created when the RDDP protocols were originally standardized.

In fact the registries in the RDDP registries draft are "incomplete" in another way, as they do not contain any entries from the MPA Peer Connect draft.  This is deliberate: after the RDDP registries RFC creates the registries, the MPA Peer Connect RFC will add entries to two of them.  In the future the RDMA protocol extensions RFC will add entries to another one of these registries, and it looks like you want to add text to create an atomic operation codes registry.

Items 1 and 2 are premature, as there is no final version of the RDMA protocol extensions draft.  IANA Considerations text will need to be added to the RDMA protocol extensions draft to address items 1 and 2.

Thanks,
--David
----------------------------------------------------
David L. Black, Distinguished Engineer
EMC Corporation, 176 South St., Hopkinton, MA  01748
[phone]             FAX: [phone]
[e-mail]        Mobile: [phone]
----------------------------------------------------

From: Hemal Shah [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Thursday, November 17, 2011 12:49 PM
To: Black, David; [e-mail]
Subject: RE: Publication requested for RDDP registries draft

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: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of [e-mail]
Sent: Monday, November 14, 2011 10:19 PM
To: [e-mail]
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 ([e-mail]) 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
[phone]             FAX: [phone]
[e-mail]        Mobile: [phone]
----------------------------------------------------


_______________________________________________
storm mailing list
[e-mail]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/storm