Re: [storm] WG Review: STORage Maintenance (storm)
Lars Eggert <lars.eggert@nokia.com> Tue, 14 July 2009 05:43 UTC
Return-Path: <lars.eggert@nokia.com>
X-Original-To: storm@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: storm@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0FDD13A69E7 for <storm@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 13 Jul 2009 22:43:13 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.98
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.98 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_SORBS_WEB=0.619]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id HLdWaDXe-HVH for <storm@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 13 Jul 2009 22:43:11 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail.fit.nokia.com (mail.fit.nokia.com [195.148.124.195]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3D6933A6995 for <storm@ietf.org>; Mon, 13 Jul 2009 22:43:11 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [10.130.5.33] (2.234.241.83.in-addr.dgcsystems.net [83.241.234.2]) (authenticated bits=0) by mail.fit.nokia.com (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id n6E5gmM2088474 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NOT) for <storm@ietf.org>; Tue, 14 Jul 2009 08:42:48 +0300 (EEST) (envelope-from lars.eggert@nokia.com)
Message-Id: <9EB61E7E-994F-48AB-84A3-31F42700A7F8@nokia.com>
From: Lars Eggert <lars.eggert@nokia.com>
To: storm@ietf.org
In-Reply-To: <20090623200001.721F128C40E@core3.amsl.com>
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail-24-807451524"; micalg="sha1"; protocol="application/pkcs7-signature"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v935.3)
Date: Tue, 14 Jul 2009 08:41:47 +0300
References: <20090623200001.721F128C40E@core3.amsl.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.935.3)
X-Greylist: Sender succeeded SMTP AUTH, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.2.2 (mail.fit.nokia.com [212.213.221.39]); Tue, 14 Jul 2009 08:42:49 +0300 (EEST)
Subject: Re: [storm] WG Review: STORage Maintenance (storm)
X-BeenThere: storm@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: Storage Maintenance WG <storm.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/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: Tue, 14 Jul 2009 05:43:13 -0000
Hi, I wanted to quickly update you on the status of STORM. The IESG has approved the WG with the charter below. As soon as I get the final OK from the two co-chairs I picked, the chartering will be announced. I'd also like to thank everyone who volunteered to co-chair - I had an *extremely* strong candidate pool to choose from. (I wish this was so for other WG charterings...) Lars On 2009-6-23, at 23:00, IESG Secretary wrote: > A new IETF working group has been proposed in the Transport Area. The > IESG has not made any determination as yet. The following draft > charter > was submitted, and is provided for informational purposes only. > Please > send your comments to the IESG mailing list (iesg@ietf.org) by > Tuesday, > June 30, 2009. > > > STORage Maintenance (storm) > ---------------------------------- > Last Modified: 2009-06-18 > > Current Status: Proposed Working Group > > Chairs: > - TBD > > Transport Area Director(s): > - Magnus Westerlund <magnus.westerlund@ericsson.com> > - Lars Eggert <lars.eggert@nokia.com> > > Transport Area Advisor: > - Lars Eggert <lars.eggert@nokia.com> > > Mailing Lists: > General Discussion: storm@ietf.org > To Subscribe: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/storm > Archive: http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/storm/index.html > > Description of Working Group: > > The IETF ips (IP Storage) and rddp (Remote Direct Data Placement) > working groups have produced a significant number of storage > protocols (e.g., iSCSI, iSER and FCIP) for which there is > significant usage. The time has come to reflect feedback from > implementation and usage into updated RFCs; this work may include: > > - Implementation-driven revisions and updates to existing protocols > (i.e., updated RFCs that match the "running code"). > - Interoperability reports as needed for the resulting revised > protocols that are appropriate for Draft Standard RFC status. > - Minor protocol changes or additions. Backwards compatibility > is required. > > Significant changes to the existing protocol standards are out of > scope, including any work on version 2 of any of these protocols. > Security for these protocols is based on the functionality specified > in RFC 3723 (Securing Block Storage Protocols over IP); the working > group does not intend to make major changes or updates to that RFC. > > Stability is critical to the usage of these protocols, making > backwards compatibility with existing implementations a requirement > for all protocol changes and additions. This is a requirement for > implementation compatibility - if all implementations of a protocol > have done something different than what the RFC specified, then it > is appropriate for a new RFC to document what the "running code" > actually does and deprecate the unimplemented original behavior. > > Initial list of work items: > (1) iSCSI: Combine RFCs 3720 (iSCSI), 3980 (NAA names), 4850 (node > architecture key) and 5048 (corrections/clarifications) into > one draft (3720bis), removing features that are not implemented > in practice. This draft should be prepared so that it could > become a Draft Standard RFC, but it is up to the WG to decide > whether to advance it to Draft Standard. > (2) iSCSI: Add features to support at least SAM-4 (4th version of the > SCSI architecture) in a backwards-compatible fashion, as iSCSI > is currently based on SAM-2. This will be a separate draft > from the iSCSI update in the previous item. The Working > group may add additional minor useful iSCSI features > to this draft, including features from draft versions of > SAM-5. The iSCSI MIB (RFC 4544) should be updated to provide > SNMP support for new features as appropriate. > (3) FCIP: IP Protocol number 133 was allocated to a precursor of > the FCIP protocol in 2000, but that allocated number is not > used by FCIP. The working group will consider whether that > allocated number should be returned to IANA for future > reallocation. > (4) iFCP: The Address Translation mode of iFCP needs to be > deprecated (SHOULD NOT implement or use), as there are > significant technical problems with it as specified in RFC > 4172, and moreover, only the Address Transparent mode of iFCP > is in use. This change is to be done via a short draft that > updates RFC 4172, as opposed to a complete rewrite of RFC 4172. > A combined draft is expected that encompasses items (3) and (4); > this draft should also update the iFCP MIB (RFC 4369) to > deprecate support for iFCP Address Translation mode. > (5) RDDP Connection Setup: Good support for MPI applications requires > a small update to MPA startup functionality to allow either end > of the connection to initiate. In addition, a couple of minor > changes to RDDP connection setup are needed based on > implementation experience. > (6) iSER: Experience with Infiniband implementations suggests a few > minor updates to reflect what has been done in practice. > > The working group is expected to maintain good working relationships > with INCITS Technical Committee T10 (SCSI standards) and INCITS > Technical Committee T11 (Fibre Channel standards) via overlaps in > membership as opposed to appointment of formal liaisons. The > liaison process (including IAB appointment of a liaison or > liaisons) remains available for use if needed. > > Recent changes in INCITS rules have removed public access to some > T10 and T11 standards documents that are expected to be needed for > the WG's program of work. Arrangements have been made with T10 and > T11 for IETF participants to obtain copies of specific standards > their personal use in IETF work as needed; contact the WG chair(s) > for details. > > Goals and Milestones: > > July 2009 First version of FCIP protocol number and iFCP Address > Translation mode draft. > > Aug 2009 First version of iSCSI SAM-4 (and other) new features > draft. > > Aug 2009 First version of RDDP MPA startup change draft > > Sep 2009 Working Group Last Call on FCIP protocol number and > iFCP address change draft > > Sep 2009 First version of combined iSCSI draft (3720bis) > > Oct 2009 First version of iSER update draft > > Oct 2009 Working Group Last Call on RDDP MPA startup change draft. > > Dec 2009 Functionally complete iSCSI SAM-4 (and other) new > features draft, plus iSCSI MIB update draft. > > Feb 2010 Working Group Last Call on iSER update draft > > Mar 2010 Working Group Last Call on iSCSI SAM-4 (and other) > new features draft. > > Apr 2010 Working Group decision on whether to seek Draft Standard > RFC status for the combined iSCSI draft (3720bis). [Note: > decision may be made significantly before this date.] > > Sep 2010 Working Group Last Call on combined iSCSI draft (3720bis) > and iSCSI MIB update draft.
- Re: [storm] WG Review: STORage Maintenance (storm) Lars Eggert
- [storm] WG Review: STORage Maintenance (storm) IESG Secretary