[storm] storm WG draft status + No Orlando meeting

"Black, David" <david.black@emc.com> Wed, 02 January 2013 00:20 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 609A621E8042 for <storm@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 1 Jan 2013 16:20:36 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.479
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.479 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.120, BAYES_00=-2.599, 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 PeNOo4OgNl3b for <storm@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 1 Jan 2013 16:20:35 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mexforward.lss.emc.com (hop-nat-141.emc.com [168.159.213.141]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C261E21E8030 for <storm@ietf.org>; Tue, 1 Jan 2013 16:20:35 -0800 (PST)
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 r020KUI6018081 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for <storm@ietf.org>; Tue, 1 Jan 2013 19:20:33 -0500
Received: from mailhub.lss.emc.com (mailhubhoprd06.lss.emc.com [10.254.222.130]) by hop04-l1d11-si01.isus.emc.com (RSA Interceptor) for <storm@ietf.org>; Tue, 1 Jan 2013 19:20:17 -0500
Received: from mxhub17.corp.emc.com (mxhub17.corp.emc.com [10.254.93.46]) by mailhub.lss.emc.com (Switch-3.4.3/Switch-3.4.3) with ESMTP id r020KGZc010227 for <storm@ietf.org>; Tue, 1 Jan 2013 19:20:17 -0500
Received: from mx15a.corp.emc.com ([169.254.1.210]) by mxhub17.corp.emc.com ([10.254.93.46]) with mapi; Tue, 1 Jan 2013 19:20:16 -0500
From: "Black, David" <david.black@emc.com>
To: "storm@ietf.org" <storm@ietf.org>
Importance: high
X-Priority: 1
Date: Tue, 01 Jan 2013 19:20:15 -0500
Thread-Topic: storm WG draft status + No Orlando meeting
Thread-Index: Ac3ofu/+OnXFgnZlRnK5nrw46pKEYw==
Message-ID: <8D3D17ACE214DC429325B2B98F3AE71287DB21E9@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 + No Orlando meeting
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: Wed, 02 Jan 2013 00:20:36 -0000

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:

http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-storm-rddp-registries-02.txt

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
david.black@emc.com        Mobile: +1 (978) 394-7754
----------------------------------------------------