[storm] Plan for iSCSI work

<david.black@emc.com> Fri, 20 May 2011 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 38E00E06BE for <storm@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 20 May 2011 14:49:09 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -106.53
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-106.53 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.069, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id CRV10+LGWsiN for <storm@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 20 May 2011 14:49:08 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mexforward.lss.emc.com (mexforward.lss.emc.com [128.222.32.20]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3BA5EE0677 for <storm@ietf.org>; Fri, 20 May 2011 14:49:07 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from hop04-l1d11-si02.isus.emc.com (HOP04-L1D11-SI02.isus.emc.com [10.254.111.55]) by mexforward.lss.emc.com (Switch-3.4.3/Switch-3.4.3) with ESMTP id p4KLn7MC006296 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for <storm@ietf.org>; Fri, 20 May 2011 17:49:07 -0400
Received: from mailhub.lss.emc.com (mailhubhoprd02.lss.emc.com [10.254.221.253]) by hop04-l1d11-si02.isus.emc.com (RSA Interceptor) for <storm@ietf.org>; Fri, 20 May 2011 17:48:58 -0400
Received: from mxhub06.corp.emc.com (mxhub06.corp.emc.com [128.221.46.114]) by mailhub.lss.emc.com (Switch-3.4.3/Switch-3.4.3) with ESMTP id p4KLmqmM024914 for <storm@ietf.org>; Fri, 20 May 2011 17:48:53 -0400
Received: from mx14a.corp.emc.com ([169.254.1.245]) by mxhub06.corp.emc.com ([128.221.46.114]) with mapi; Fri, 20 May 2011 17:48:52 -0400
From: <david.black@emc.com>
To: <storm@ietf.org>
Date: Fri, 20 May 2011 17:48:51 -0400
Thread-Topic: Plan for iSCSI work
Thread-Index: AcwXN7VKMx7Ie8eaTvWbtFFzM0GDVg==
Message-ID: <7C4DFCE962635144B8FAE8CA11D0BF1E0588F426C5@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="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-EMM-MHVC: 1
Subject: [storm] Plan for iSCSI work
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: Fri, 20 May 2011 21:49:09 -0000

I thought I'd offer some advance planning/warning on this, as the consolidated
iSCSI draft (draft-ietf-storm-iscsi-cons) is large (over 300 pages).  The current
plan is to run a simultaneous WG Last Call on both this draft and the new features
draft (draft-ietf-storm-iscsi-sam) starting in mid-June (probably the week of
June 13, after I get back from a badly needed vacation).  That WG Last Call will
run longer than the typical 2-week time period, due to the total size of the
drafts, but will end by July 5th at the latest so that the status of the drafts
and the next steps are known prior to the T10 (SCSI standards) meetings during the
week of July 11.  As July 11th is also the draft cutoff deadline for the Quebec
City IETF meetings, revised draft versions may not show up until that meeting
week (week of July 24th).

This is also a good point to announce that the storm WG will meet in Quebec City.
I've only requested a 1-hour session, as we get most of our work done on the mailing
list.  Among the items for that meeting will be figuring out what to do with the
RDMA extensions draft (despite its name, draft-ietf-storm-rdmap-ext-00, it's not
currently an official work item for the storm WG).

One thing that's missing from the consolidated iSCSI draft (and is a reason why
we're going to need a -03 version) is the changes that it makes to the RFCs that
it consolidates.  Off the top of my head, the major changes are:
	- Removal of SPKM authentication
	- Removal of the Marker appendix
	- Removal of the SHOULD requirement for SLP implementation.
Have I missed anything significant?  The summary of this will need to be added
to that draft.

WG Last Call will be an opportunity (in fact the final opportunity) to discuss
whether anything else should be removed from iSCSI, but there's no need to wait
- I encourage people to review both drafts and post comments whenever they can.

In parallel, work will get started on any iSCSI MIB changes that are needed.  So
far, I only see one MIB change - the iSCSIProtocolLevel from the new features
draft needs to be added to the MIB, probably with a structure analogous to the
iSCSI version support that's already in the MIB.

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