PROTO writeup: iSCSI Extensions for RDMA Specification draft-ietf-storm-iser-12.txt PROTO shepherd: David L. Black (STORM WG Co-Chair) ------------------------------------------------------------------------ (1) What type of RFC is being requested (BCP, Proposed Standard, Internet Standard, Informational, Experimental, or Historic)? Why is this the proper type of RFC? Is this type of RFC indicated in the title page header? Proposed Standard RFC is requested because this draft updates and replaces RFC 5046, a Proposed Standard RFC. Proposed Standard is indicated as the intended status is in the title page header. (2) 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 iSCSI Extensions for RDMA provides the RDMA data transfer capability to iSCSI by layering iSCSI on top of an RDMA-Capable Protocol. An RDMA-Capable Protocol provides RDMA Read and Write services, which enable data to be transferred directly into SCSI I/O Buffers without intermediate data copies. This document describes the extensions to the iSCSI protocol to support RDMA services as provided by an RDMA- Capable Protocol. Working Group Summary This document is a minor update to RFC 5046, primarily to reflect what has actually been done in implementations. WG Last Call turned up several issues around relaxing RFC 5046's requirements based on what implementations have done. These issues involved use of Send message types that have side effects (implementations often do not use these) and the consequeces of delayed resource allocation (implementations have run into a race condition that can terminate an iSER connection if measures to avoid it are not taken). All of these issues have been resolved in the current version of this document, although the race condition avoidance is not perfect due to the need to cope wiht current "running code" in implementations. Document Quality There are multiple implementations of the iSER protocol; the primary purpose of this document is to reflect implementation experience so that the iSER protocol specification matches the "running code". Hemal Shah's review of the document resulted in some important changes in the text describing use of versions of the Send message. Alexander Neshinsky reported the resource allocation problem seen in implmenetations and provided valuable help in working out an approach that encompasses boht the "right thing" to do going forward and necessary measures to cope with current "running code" in implementations. Personnel Document Shepherd: David Black (storm WG co-chair) Responsible Area Director: Martin Stiemerling (Transport) (3) Briefly describe the review of this document that was performed by the Document Shepherd. If this version of the document is not ready for publication, please explain why the document is being forwarded to the IESG. The Document Shepherd read the document in its entirety for WG Last Call and compared it to RFC 5046 at that timme. The Document Shepherd has reviewed all of the subsequent changes. Numerous changes have been made to this document in response to the Document Shepherd's comments at WG Last Call and subsequently. The Document Shepherd believes that this document is now ready for RFC publication. (4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews that have been performed? No. (5) Do portions of the document need review from a particular or from broader perspective, e.g., security, operational complexity, AAA, DNS, DHCP, XML, or internationalization? No. (6) Describe any specific concerns or issues that the Document Shepherd has 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. None. (7) Has each author confirmed that any and all appropriate IPR disclosures required for full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79 have already been filed. If not, explain why. Yes. (8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document? No. (9) 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 storm (STORage Maintenance) WG is a maintenance WG that works on a number of storage technologies, and hence not every participant is interested in every technology. The members of the WG who are interested in iSER understand and agree with this document. (10) Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme discontent? No. (11) Identify any ID nits the Document Shepherd has found in this document. (See http://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/ and the Internet-Drafts Checklist). Boilerplate checks are not enough; this check needs to be thorough. No nits - idnits 2.12.13 issues three warnings that do not reflect actual problems with the draft. (12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews. Not applicable. (13) Have all references within this document been identified as either normative or informative? Yes. (14) Are there normative references to documents that are not ready for advancement or are otherwise in an unclear state? No. (15) Are there downward normative references references (see RFC 3967)? No. (16) Will publication of this document change the status of any existing RFCs? Are those RFCs listed on the title page header, listed in the abstract, and discussed in the introduction? If the RFCs are not listed in the Abstract and Introduction, explain why, and point to the part of the document where the relationship of this document to the other RFCs is discussed. If this information is not in the document, explain why the WG considers it unnecessary. This document obsoletes RFC 5046; that is listed in the title page header and stated in the Abstract. The Introduction section starts on p.15, and it does not seem necessary to repeat the obsolescence statement that far into the document. (17) Describe the Document Shepherd's review of the IANA considerations section, especially with regard to its consistency with the body of the document. Confirm that all protocol extensions that the document makes are associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries. Confirm that any referenced IANA registries have been clearly identified. The IANA considerations section adds three keys to the iSCSI Login/Text Keys" registry of "iSCSI Parameters", and requests reference updates to other iSER keys that will be confirmed by IANA. The document shepherd has checked the IANA Considerations section and believes it to be correct and sufficient. (17-continued) Confirm that newly created IANA registries include a detailed specification of the initial contents for the registry, that allocations procedures for future registrations are defined, and a reasonable name for the new registry has been suggested (see RFC 5226). Not applicable. (18) List any new IANA registries that require Expert Review for future allocations. Provide any public guidance that the IESG would find useful in selecting the IANA Experts for these new registries. Not applicable. (19) Describe reviews and automated checks performed by the Document Shepherd to validate sections of the document written in a formal language, such as XML code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, etc. Not applicable.