[storm] MPA Peer Connect: Publication Requested
<david.black@emc.com> Fri, 08 April 2011 21:35 UTC
Return-Path: <david.black@emc.com>
X-Original-To: storm@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: storm@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EC7643A6905 for <storm@core3.amsl.com>; Fri, 8 Apr 2011 14:35:50 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -106.588
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-106.588 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.011, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id apMiSJE2Xr2A for <storm@core3.amsl.com>; Fri, 8 Apr 2011 14:35:49 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mexforward.lss.emc.com (mexforward.lss.emc.com [128.222.32.20]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8A2343A688A for <storm@ietf.org>; Fri, 8 Apr 2011 14:35:49 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from hop04-l1d11-si03.isus.emc.com (HOP04-L1D11-SI03.isus.emc.com [10.254.111.23]) by mexforward.lss.emc.com (Switch-3.4.3/Switch-3.4.3) with ESMTP id p38LbVY3014838 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for <storm@ietf.org>; Fri, 8 Apr 2011 17:37:32 -0400
Received: from mailhub.lss.emc.com (mailhubhoprd01.lss.emc.com [10.254.221.251]) by hop04-l1d11-si03.isus.emc.com (RSA Interceptor) for <storm@ietf.org>; Fri, 8 Apr 2011 17:37:19 -0400
Received: from mxhub31.corp.emc.com (mxhub31.corp.emc.com [128.221.47.160]) by mailhub.lss.emc.com (Switch-3.4.3/Switch-3.4.3) with ESMTP id p38La4ct010463 for <storm@ietf.org>; Fri, 8 Apr 2011 17:36:05 -0400
Received: from mx14a.corp.emc.com ([169.254.2.150]) by mxhub31.corp.emc.com ([128.221.47.160]) with mapi; Fri, 8 Apr 2011 17:36:04 -0400
From: david.black@emc.com
To: storm@ietf.org
Date: Fri, 08 Apr 2011 17:36:03 -0400
Thread-Topic: MPA Peer Connect: Publication Requested
Thread-Index: Acv2NPYoO8LwgecNTt2x5FmPIA012Q==
Message-ID: <7C4DFCE962635144B8FAE8CA11D0BF1E041664F53C@MX14A.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="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-EMM-MHVC: 1
Subject: [storm] MPA Peer Connect: Publication Requested
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: Fri, 08 Apr 2011 21:35:51 -0000
I have just requested publication of the MPA Peer Connect draft as a Proposed Standard RFC. The next process steps will be Area Director review (by our AD, Dave Harrington) followed by IETF Last Call. The PROTO writeup that is part of the publication request follows. Enjoy, --David PROTO writeup: Enhanced RDMA Connection Establishment draft-ietf-storm-mpa-peer-connect-04.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 (david.black@emc.com) is the Document Shepherd. 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 Shepherd is satisfied that this document has been sufficiently reviewed by members of the community that uses this protocol. (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 consensus of the WG members who are familiar with this technology is solid. The storm (STORage Maintenance) WG conducts maintenance on multiple storage protocols, and different WG members have differing levels of interest and expertise across the protocols that the WG maintains. (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. Has the document met all formal review criteria it needs to, such as the MIB Doctor, media type and URI type reviews? Yes, the document satisfies ID nits. No other formal review criteria apply. (1.h) Has the document split its references into normative and informative? 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]. The references have been split, and there are no downward references or normative references to work-in-progress documents. (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? The IANA Considerations section exists and states that no IANA actions are required by this document. There are some values defined in this document that may be appropriate to be move into IANA registries if future extensions should occur, but creation of IANA registries is not necessary at this juncture (this document suffices as a reference). (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 This document extends iWARP (rddp) RDMA connection establishment with two functions that apply to the adaptation layer between RDMA functionality and the transport protocol. The first extension broadens MPA (adaptation to TCP) to enable connection establishment without initial data to send in support of applications structured as a collection of peers. The second extension improves connection setup for both MPA/TCP and the SCTP adaptation by adding support for standardized exchange of resource availability (queue depth) information. Working Group Summary This document makes small additions to existing protocols. There has been clear WG recognition that this functionality is needed to match the usage of these protocols by an important class of applications, and no significant WG dissent from the design in this document. Document Quality There are multiple existing implementations of the iWARP (rddp) RDMA protocols that have plans to add the functionality specified in this document. Hemal Shah reviewed the near-final version of this draft and found some important corrections that needed to be made.
- [storm] MPA Peer Connect: Publication Requested david.black
- Re: [storm] MPA Peer Connect: Publication Request… arkady kanevsky