Re: [storm] [tsv-area] Application protocol for distributed storage

Joe Touch <touch@ISI.EDU> Fri, 15 January 2010 16:18 UTC

Return-Path: <touch@ISI.EDU>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 269783A6AFE; Fri, 15 Jan 2010 08:18:27 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.549
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.549 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.050, BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Hy95kECQcKRA; Fri, 15 Jan 2010 08:18:26 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 127B33A6837; Fri, 15 Jan 2010 08:18:22 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [] ( []) (authenticated bits=0) by (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id o0FGHagk025684 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NOT); Fri, 15 Jan 2010 08:17:38 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <>
Date: Fri, 15 Jan 2010 08:17:36 -0800
From: Joe Touch <touch@ISI.EDU>
User-Agent: Thunderbird (Windows/20090812)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Wesley Leggette <>
References: <>
In-Reply-To: <>
X-Enigmail-Version: 0.96.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="------------enig2AAD42570EB25ADB606686BE"
X-ISI-4-43-8-MailScanner: Found to be clean
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Sat, 16 Jan 2010 09:29:25 -0800
Cc: TSV Area <>, "" <>, "" <>
Subject: Re: [storm] [tsv-area] Application protocol for distributed storage
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: Storage Maintenance WG <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 15 Jan 2010 16:18:27 -0000


It seems to me that your first review just came in ;-). I.e., it would
be useful to indicate the extent to which your current docs address how
existing protocols were not sufficient.

If they don't yet do this, then that would appear to be a useful next step.

Beyond that, what is the purpose of this review? I would expect that
useful aspects of your protocol could be incorporated into standards
track protocols under development, or that a new protocol
(informational, experimental, or standards track) could be established
based on your protocol. Can you address what your goals are?


Wesley Leggette wrote:
>> you probably want to take a look at the work of the NFSv4 working group
>> (, since NFS is the IETF's current
>> major protocol in this space.
>> The STORM working group ( is currently
>> chartered to do maintenance on the lower part of the IETF storage stack,
>> namely, the iSCSI and RDMA protocols originally done in the now-concluded IPS
>> and RDDP working groups.
>> (I've CC'ed both NFSv4 and STORM on this reply.)
>> Lars
> Thanks. I'll look into this.
> However, I should have been clear that we already have a protocol for our
> product, and at this point we'd just like to publish it for review. I was
> looking for a working group or people who would be interested in that.
> Wesley Leggette
> Cleversafe, Inc.