[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 []) 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-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 ([]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com []) (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 []) 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 []) 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 []) 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 []) 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 ([]) by mxhub31.corp.emc.com ([]) with mapi; Fri, 8 Apr 2011 17:36:04 -0400
From: <david.black@emc.com>
To: <storm@ietf.org>
Date: Fri, 8 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
acceptlanguage: en-US
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
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.


PROTO writeup: 
                 Enhanced RDMA Connection Establishment

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?


  (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.


  (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.)


  (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?


  (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.