Re: [storm] Combined iSCSI draft - Proposed Standard, not Draft Standard

Paul Koning <> Tue, 15 March 2011 01:13 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id A071D3A6A94 for <>; Mon, 14 Mar 2011 18:13:42 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -106.599
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-106.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id zIHQ4c5VhstN for <>; Mon, 14 Mar 2011 18:13:41 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9D03C3A696C for <>; Mon, 14 Mar 2011 18:13:41 -0700 (PDT)
X-Loopcount0: from
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1082)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
From: Paul Koning <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Date: Mon, 14 Mar 2011 21:15:02 -0400
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <>
References: <>
To: <> <>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1082)
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 15 Mar 2011 01:15:06.0101 (UTC) FILETIME=[6B34F250:01CBE2AE]
Subject: Re: [storm] Combined iSCSI draft - Proposed Standard, not Draft Standard
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: Tue, 15 Mar 2011 01:13:42 -0000

I guess I may need to read up on the formal requirements.  Clearly there is a large body of experience with interoperability of iSCSI implementations.  So it can't be the case that the maturity isn't there; if paper has to be pushed, perhaps contractors could be funded by interested parties to make that happen.

I'm concerned about the message implicit in not advancing the level.  If we send out STORM with the same "draft standard" status as the original RFC 3720, that sounds like we're telling the world that there has been no significant increase in standards maturity in the past 7 years.  I can't believe that this is the sort of message we would send out lightly.


On Mar 14, 2011, at 6:54 PM, <> <> wrote:

> We have the following milestone on our charter that needs some attention:
> Working Group decision on whether to seek Draft Standard RFC status for the combined iSCSI draft (3720bis). 
> Based on level of activity and interest that I've observed on and off the list, I don't see much interest in doing the interoperability report work that would be required to take this draft through the format IETF process required for Draft Standard status.
> Speaking for myself, I don't have the cycles available to do the work that would be required to oversee this process, and I don't believe that iSCSI is experiencing the sort of interoperability problems in practice that this work would help with.
> Therefore I believe that the rough consensus of the storm WG is that the combined iSCSI draft (draft-ietf-storm-iscsi-cons) should be published as a Proposed Standard RFC (same status as RFC 3720 and RFC 5048, among others).
> Anyone who disagrees should post to the list and explain why they disagree with this course of action.
> Thanks,
> --David
> ----------------------------------------------------
> David L. Black, Distinguished Engineer
> EMC Corporation, 176 South St., Hopkinton, MA  01748
> +1 (508) 293-7953             FAX: +1 (508) 293-7786
>        Mobile: +1 (978) 394-7754
> ----------------------------------------------------
> _______________________________________________
> storm mailing list