PROTO writeup: Internet Small Computer Systems Interface (iSCSI) SCSI Features Update draft-ietf-storm-iscsi-sam-08.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, from implementers who work on important iSCSI implementations (both initiator and target implementations) outside the WG and from key members of INCITS Technical Committee T10, the organization responsible for SCSI standards. (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 behind this document is solid; the WG as a whole understands this document and agrees with the need for these minor updates. (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. Yes. idnits 2.12.17 complained about some missing references, all of which are covered by RFC Editor Notes in the document, and it also flagged all references to SCSI standards as possible dowrefs (they aren't). Has the document met all formal review criteria it needs to, such as the MIB Doctor, media type and URI type reviews? N/A. (1.h) Has the document split its references into normative and informative? Yes. 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]. This document normatively references draft-ietf-storm-iscsi-cons-xx, which is in the RFC Editor's Queue. In addition, this document normatively references three SCSI standards that are developed by INCITS Technical Committee T10 (www.t10.org), namely SAM2, SAM5 and SPC4. As a completed standard, SAM2 is not a publicly available document, because T10's parent standards organizations fund their operations in part by charging for copies of standards. The document shepherd, David Black, is also the official T10 Liaison to the IETF and in that role, he has been authorized by T10 to provide copies of these standards to IETF participants for their personal use in IETF activities. If copies of SAM2 are desired, please contact the document shepherd, David Black (david.black@emc.com). (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 has been checked - the text describing the additions to existing registries and creation of one new registry is clear. The new registry does not use the Expert Review process. (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 The Internet Small Computer Systems Interface (iSCSI) is a SCSI transport protocol that maps the SCSI family of protocols onto TCP/IP. The base iSCSI protocol is based on the SAM-2 (SCSI Architecture Model - 2) SCSI standard. This document specifies enhancements to the iSCSI protocol to support certain additional SCSI features that have been defined in subsequent versions of the SCSI Architecture Model. Working Group Summary There was very little dissent in the WG over the functionality in this document. Significant WG discussion was devoted to correctly specifying SCSI-related identifiers used by this draft. Rob Elliott and Ralph Weber (key members of the T10 SCSI standards organization) provided significant assistance in working through the identifier issues. This document was returned to the WG after IESG evaluation primarily to deal with functionality negotiation concerns (iSCSIProtocolLevel key) and related IANA Considerations. The WG has resolved those concerns. Document Quality iSCSI implementers from Dell, EMC, Microsoft, NetApp, RedHat and VMware have reviewed this document for quality and consistency with existing implementations. The reviews indicate that the enhancements are clearly specified, and are not expected to be significantly disruptive to add to existing implementations.