[storm] storm WG draft Status - July 2

"Black, David" <david.black@emc.com> Tue, 02 July 2013 21:49 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 19BE211E80E0 for <storm@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 2 Jul 2013 14:49:46 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.524
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.524 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.075, 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 rRh3YCu+WDNG for <storm@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 2 Jul 2013 14:49:41 -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 E91B021F8A50 for <storm@ietf.org>; Tue, 2 Jul 2013 14:49:40 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from hop04-l1d11-si01.isus.emc.com (HOP04-L1D11-SI01.isus.emc.com [10.254.111.54]) by mexforward.lss.emc.com (Switch-3.4.3/Switch-3.4.3) with ESMTP id r62LneqU026404 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for <storm@ietf.org>; Tue, 2 Jul 2013 17:49:40 -0400
Received: from mailhub.lss.emc.com (mailhubhoprd03.lss.emc.com [10.254.221.145]) by hop04-l1d11-si01.isus.emc.com (RSA Interceptor) for <storm@ietf.org>; Tue, 2 Jul 2013 17:49:35 -0400
Received: from mxhub26.corp.emc.com (mxhub26.corp.emc.com [10.254.110.182]) by mailhub.lss.emc.com (Switch-3.4.3/Switch-3.4.3) with ESMTP id r62LnZT1019052 for <storm@ietf.org>; Tue, 2 Jul 2013 17:49:35 -0400
Received: from mx15a.corp.emc.com ([169.254.1.184]) by mxhub26.corp.emc.com ([10.254.110.182]) with mapi; Tue, 2 Jul 2013 17:49:35 -0400
From: "Black, David" <david.black@emc.com>
To: "storm@ietf.org" <storm@ietf.org>
Date: Tue, 2 Jul 2013 17:49:33 -0400
Thread-Topic: storm WG draft Status - July 2
Thread-Index: Ac53bgoHi8qvQhIoRT6lf3Q0+mOj6Q==
Message-ID: <8D3D17ACE214DC429325B2B98F3AE712983333BB@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 - July 2
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, 02 Jul 2013 21:49:46 -0000

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

1) iSCSI consolidated draft.  Almost done!  All of the IESG Evaluation
comments have been resolved, and the Discuss positions cleared.  A new
version is needed to clean up a few things.  The IPsec requirements
update draft Working Group Last Call needs to finish first before
approval of this draft for RFC publication can be announced - see item 5).

2) iSCSI SAM (new features) draft.  In WG Last Call through July 10,
primarily to check that the iSCSIProtocolLevel text key, and its
associated new registry are specified correctly.  The hope is to get
the revised version submitted before the July 15 cutoff for the Berlin
IETF meeting.  This will go to the IESG along with the iSCSI MIB draft.

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.  Almost done!  The IESG has approved this draft for
publication as an RFC.  An editorial update is required to deal with a
few minor comments, after which the draft also has to wait for the IPsec
requirements update draft Working Group Last Call to finish before
approval of this draft for RFC publication can be announced - next item.

5) RFC 3723 IPsec requirements update draft.  After working through the
IPsec requirements situation for iSER, where we were headed for two
different IPsec profiles for iSCSI/iSER vs. iWARP, it became apparent 
that the right thing to do is update the IPsec requirements in RFC 3723
across the board.  The draft that does that is in WG Last Call through
tomorrow.  My intent is to submit a new version by early next week to
enable publication announcements for the iSCSI consolidated draft and
iSER drafts (based on revised versions of both) later next week.

6) That leaves the RDMA Extensions draft, whose authors have been patiently
waiting for the above to complete.  I need to review this draft promptly
and send it to Working Group Last Call.  This draft will expire next week,
so a new version will be needed by July 15 in order to send it to Working
Group Last Call.  I'm going to try to review this draft over the weekend,
and I will offer the authors the choice of how much of my comments to put
into the new version vs. treat as initial Working Group Last Call comments.

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