[storm] Publication requested for RDDP registries draft

[<[e-mail]>]

I just submitted the request to publish the RDDP registries draft as a Proposed Standard RFC.
Here's the PROTO writeup:

PROTO writeup: 
                         IANA Registries for the RDDP
                   (Remote Direct Data Placement) Protocols
                   draft-ietf-storm-rddp-registries-00.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 ([e-mail]) is the Document Shepherd and a co-author
of the draft.  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.  The document has
been prepared quickly, but has essentially no new technical content, as the
document creates and populates IANA registries based on values specified
in existing RFCs.

  (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 is largely silent, but the Document Shepherd believes that the
need for this document is clearly understood by the WG as a whole, and
no objections have been raised.

  (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.

        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].

There are no issues with the normative references.

  (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?

Almost the entire document is IANA Considerations text that creates
new registries.  The new contents and allocation procedure are defined,
and the registries have reasonable names.  The Expert Review process
is not used.

  (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 original RFCs that specified the RDDP protocol suite did not
   create IANA registries for RDDP error codes, operation codes and
   function codes.  Extensions to the RDDP protocols now require
   these registries to be created.  This memo creates the RDDP
   registries, populates them with values defined in the original
   RDDP RFCs, and provides guidance to IANA for future assignment
   of code points within these registries.

     Working Group Summary 

   Nothing exceptional to note.

     Document Quality 

   There are multiple implementations of the RDDP protocols to
   which these new registries apply.

Thanks,
--David
----------------------------------------------------
David L. Black, Distinguished Engineer
EMC Corporation, 176 South St., Hopkinton, MA  01748
[phone]             FAX: [phone]
[e-mail]        Mobile: [phone]
----------------------------------------------------