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

Wesley Leggette <> Fri, 15 January 2010 16:37 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 454E63A6B16; Fri, 15 Jan 2010 08:37:07 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.45
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.45 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.149, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id OD1x1OrInZaJ; Fri, 15 Jan 2010 08:37:06 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 287363A6907; Fri, 15 Jan 2010 08:37:06 -0800 (PST)
Received: from unknown [] (EHLO by with ESMTP id (envelope-from <>); Fri, 15 Jan 2010 09:37:03 -0700 (MST)
X-MXL-Hash: 4b5099af52d057db-f5383575ea9c0cce7c55442f1eb217d6e5463609
Received: from unknown [] by with SMTP id (envelope-from <>); Fri, 15 Jan 2010 09:36:55 -0700 (MST)
X-MXL-Hash: 4b5099a758d4c65d-4a6b0a6c34ceaeaf6eb090b7ec4689309bd0741a
Received: from ([]) by ([]) with mapi; Fri, 15 Jan 2010 10:36:15 -0600
From: Wesley Leggette <>
To: Joe Touch <touch@ISI.EDU>
Date: Fri, 15 Jan 2010 10:36:12 -0600
Thread-Topic: [tsv-area] Application protocol for distributed storage
Thread-Index: AcqV/yqF6dhYOLmOTnqEMlnwwCpujwAAa6Xs
Message-ID: <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en
acceptlanguage: en-US
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Spam: [F=0.2000000000; CM=0.500; S=0.200(2010011101)]
X-AnalysisOut: [v=1.0 c=1 a=CyslJ_pbL6wA:10 a=jM3uHZP82BWpxjlUuN2t4A==:17 ]
X-AnalysisOut: [a=nHjuGWrCVes5ykb9A-AA:9 a=Ig04n9vCEINSPlg4YLoA:7 a=KcScDd]
X-AnalysisOut: [k_fWJbtrCDEFwvZBGKkloA:4 a=5EGjE78qLG19JwpC:21 a=HoHZb2on5]
X-AnalysisOut: [YZRl_L_:21]
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 16:37:07 -0000


Thank you ;)

I should start by saying that at this point we have a fully implemented and
working product, so our overall goal is to sufficiently describe it to allow
third-party implementations.

This being said, our current installation base allows for some flexibility
so it is my hope that by submitting a protocol specification for review we
can receive constructive criticism which will make it easier and more
practical for others to implement our protocol.

My initial plan was to finish an initial draft of our transport and security
protocols. This email was sent to determine if and where an appropriate
working group exists which would be interested in reviewing such a thing.

However, I see your point and so I suppose the best approach would be to
attempt, when I submit something, to explain clearly the design goals and
requirements that led us to go the route we did?

When we are ready to submit something (it would be a submission which
documents what we have currently implemented) is there a working group that
would be appropriate, or should we just submit an I-D directly?

Wesley Leggette
Cleversafe, Inc.

On 1/15/10 10:17, "Joe Touch" <touch@ISI.EDU> wrote:

> Wesley,
> 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?
> Joe