Re: [storm] storm WG draft status

"Black, David" <> Mon, 21 January 2013 02:06 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id CA3AC21F8777 for <>; Sun, 20 Jan 2013 18:06:02 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -100
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-100 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 0m+OsTvYgf3W for <>; Sun, 20 Jan 2013 18:06:01 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id B539221F879A for <>; Sun, 20 Jan 2013 18:05:58 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) by (Switch-3.4.3/Switch-3.4.3) with ESMTP id r0L25vIr016302 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for <>; Sun, 20 Jan 2013 21:05:57 -0500
Received: from ( []) by (RSA Interceptor) for <>; Sun, 20 Jan 2013 21:05:42 -0500
Received: from ( []) by (Switch-3.4.3/Switch-3.4.3) with ESMTP id r0L25fdv016476 for <>; Sun, 20 Jan 2013 21:05:41 -0500
Received: from ([]) by ([]) with mapi; Sun, 20 Jan 2013 21:05:41 -0500
From: "Black, David" <>
To: "" <>
Date: Sun, 20 Jan 2013 21:05:40 -0500
Thread-Topic: storm WG draft status
Thread-Index: Ac3ofu/+OnXFgnZlRnK5nrw46pKEYwO+6xZA
Message-ID: <>
References: <>
In-Reply-To: <>
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: Re: [storm] storm WG draft status
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Storage Maintenance WG <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 21 Jan 2013 02:06:02 -0000

Quick update on these drafts + the iSER draft

iSCSI Consolidated: New -08 version has appeared to resolve most of the
comments.  There are still some security (and probably other) issues that'll
require a -09 version, including the IPsec profile update

iSCSI Features Update (SAM): New version expected by first week of Feb.
That'll need to be checked against the then-current version of the iSCSI
consolidated draft before going into IESG Evaluation.

iSCSI MIB: Now in IETF Last Call through Jan 28.

RDMAP Extensions: Revised version submitted.

iSER: The IPsec profile update to RFC 3723 came up in this draft as well, and
that update will have to be addressed in the iSCSI Consolidated draft before
the iSER draft can go to IESG Evaluation.

The current intent is to have the IPsec profile update to RFC 3723 affect all
RFCs that use it, including the RDDP (iWARP) RFCs.

I will be on vacation with no email (email is among the things that I *really*
need a vacation from) for the next couple of weeks, so expect further progress
towards the end of the first week of Feb.


> -----Original Message-----
> From: [] On Behalf Of
> Black, David
> Sent: Tuesday, January 01, 2013 7:20 PM
> To:
> Subject: [storm] storm WG draft status + No Orlando meeting
> Importance: High
> My day job's been demanding too much of my time lately, but I'm finally
> getting back to storm WG activity after a few months of too many other
> things to do.  Sorry for the hiatus, and here's the status info for
> the storm WG's five drafts as I understand things:
> iSCSI Consolidated: Completed IESG evaluation, with a number of issues
> that need to be resolved.  At least two security issues will be sent to
> this list soon, as they need attention from the working group.
> iSCSI Features Update (SAM): Completed IETF Last Call.  Needs a revised
> version in order to go to the IESG.  I believe that the draft editor
> understands what needs to be done; with luck that'll go to IESG Evaluation
> this month.
> iSCSI MIB: Sent back to MIB Doctors for a re-review of changes.  We're
> waiting on them.
> RDMAP Extensions: This one's about to expire w/o changes again due to
> delays in working on other drafts.  There won't be time for me to do a
> detailed technical review and get the new version submitted before the
> current version expires.  OTOH, there are some minor issues with the
> text that specifies the new IANA registry in section 10.1 - I suggest
> that the authors update that text based on the text in the final version
> of the RDDP registries draft:
> As part of this:
> - The registry should be called "RDMAP Message Atomic Operation Subcodes"
> 	and change from "Code" to "Subcode" elsewhere in the draft.  This
> 	avoids confusion with the main RDMAP Opcodes.
> - Add a sentence to say that an experimental RDMAP opcode has already been
> 	allocated, and hence there is no need for an experimental atomic
> 	operation subcode.
> While some of the issues with the Consolidated draft require WG attention,
> I don't think a meeting will be needed to deal with them, so I don't plan
> to ask for meeting time in Orlando in March.
> Thanks,
> --David
> ----------------------------------------------------
> David L. Black, Distinguished Engineer
> EMC Corporation, 176 South St., Hopkinton, MA  01748
> +1 (508) 293-7953             FAX: +1 (508) 293-7786
>        Mobile: +1 (978) 394-7754
> ----------------------------------------------------
> _______________________________________________
> storm mailing list