david.black | 29 Dec 04:49 2011

Closing rddp mailing list

The RDDP WG concluded in 2007.  Work on the RDDP protocols has moved
to the storm (STORage Maintenance WG), and there has been no traffic
on the rddp <at> ietf.org mailing list prior to this message since mid-2009,
so that mailing list will be closed shortly.  The list archives will
remain available on ietf.org as part of the record of the concluded
RDDP WG: http://www.ietf.org/wg/concluded/rddp.html

All email regarding the RDDP protocols should be directed to the storm
WG mailing list, storm <at> ietf.org.

Thanks,
--David
----------------------------------------------------
David L. Black, Distinguished Engineer
EMC Corporation, 176 South St., Hopkinton, MA  01748
+1 (508) 293-7953             FAX: +1 (508) 293-7786
david.black <at> emc.com        Mobile: +1 (978) 394-7754
----------------------------------------------------
Black_David | 31 May 22:03 2009

STORM proposed charter - 31 May 2009 version

What I believe is the final draft of the proposed charter
for the STORM WG is attached; I've done a bunch of editing
and added the info about T10 and T11 doc access.  This is
about to go out for wider review.

Also, a reminder that STORM discussion will stop cc:'ing
other mailing lists soon.  If you're interested in STORM
work, please subscribe to the storm <at> ietf.org mailing list:
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/storm

Finally - this is a near-final reminder that the rddp <at> ietf.org
mailing list will be closing soon - all discussion of RDDP
protocols will move to the storm <at> ietf.org mailing list.

Thanks,
--David
----------------------------------------------------
David L. Black, Distinguished Engineer
EMC Corporation, 176 South St., Hopkinton, MA  01748
+1 (508) 293-7953             FAX: +1 (508) 293-7786
black_david <at> emc.com        Mobile: +1 (978) 394-7754
----------------------------------------------------
Proposed Working Group: STORM (STORage Maintenance)
	Transport (TSV) Area
Proposed Charter (Draft of May 31, 2009)
-----------------------------------------------------------

Chairs:
(Continue reading)

Black_David | 15 May 01:29 2009

Storm WG: Progress update

Progress is being made on the proposed storm WG - I plan to
post a new version of the proposed charter next week.  There
have been a few minor changes:
- The new iSCSI features work needs to include appropriate
	updates to the iSCSI MIB.
- Similarly, deprecating iFCP Address Translation mode
	will need to include an update to the iFCP MIB.
- It's useful to reference RFC 3723 for security and state
	that changes are not planned.

This is also a good time to remind people to subscribe to the
storm <at> ietf.org mailing list.  Once the WG is formed, cross-posting
to the other mailing lists will cease.  To subscribe, please
visit: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/storm .  Also,
this is another reminder that the rddp <at> ietf.org list will be
shut down in favor of the storm <at> ietf.org mailing list in the
near future.

In addition, I've run into a minor hiccup involving access to
T10 (SCSI) and T11 (Fibre Channel) standards documents.  The
INCITS access rules changed recently to prohibit general
public access to final drafts of approved standards (access is
available to anyone whose company belongs to T10 or T11).  This
is not as big a problem as it might appear, because our primary
need in IETF is access to working drafts that remain publicly
accessible.

An important specific example is that part of the iSCSI update
work to SAM-4 is to specify a number of new task management
functions, including QUERY TASK.  It turns out that T10 has made
(Continue reading)

Black_David | 27 Apr 04:42 2009

Proposed Storm WG Charter

The proposed WG charter for the Storm WG is attached.

The major changes from the charter discussed at the
storm BOF in San Francisco are:
- Deferred decision on whether to take iSCSI to Draft
	Standard RFC status; the WG gets to decide
	(i.e., it's not an up-front commitment to seed
	 Draft Standard RFC status).
- Added some text about maintaining good informal working
	relationships with T10 and T11; the formal IETF
	Liaison process is available as a last resort, but
	this is not the best way to get things done.
- There are a set of goals and milestones.

I have expressions of interest from draft authors for all
six of the work items listed on this draft charter.

If you have any concerns about this charter or want to
comment on it, please speak up ASAP, ... BUT ...

... the forum for discussion of this charter is the new
storm <at> ietf.org mailing list - if you're interested,
please join that list and make sure your comments go
there.  The list archives should be available on-line.

Thanks,
--David
----------------------------------------------------
David L. Black, Distinguished Engineer
EMC Corporation, 176 South St., Hopkinton, MA  01748
(Continue reading)

Black_David | 24 Apr 20:38 2009

Announcement: STORM mailing list

The storm <at> ietf.org mailing list for the STORM (STORage
Maintenance) proposed WG has now been created.  To
join the list please visit:

https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/storm

The immediate reason for joining this list is that I
expect to sent out a draft STORM WG charter (with goals
and milestones) for discussion sometime next week.  While
the draft charter will be announced to all of these lists
(IPS, RDDP, IMSS, STORM), discussion of the proposed
charter will *only* be on the STORM list.

Also, for RDDP list subscribers only: This is the first
warning that the RDDP list is expected to be closed in
the next couple of months, as the STORM list is it's
replacement.

The IPS and IMSS mailing lists will remain open.

Thanks,
--David
----------------------------------------------------
David L. Black, Distinguished Engineer
EMC Corporation, 176 South St., Hopkinton, MA  01748
+1 (508) 293-7953             FAX: +1 (508) 293-7786
black_david <at> emc.com        Mobile: +1 (978) 394-7754
----------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
Ips mailing list
(Continue reading)

Black_David | 27 Mar 05:57 2009

STORM BOF - Draft minutes

See below - these are a bit on the long side, as a lot of
ground was covered in the BOF.  Many thanks to Paul Koning
for helping to take notes.

We did not actually have a jabber scribe providing running
commentary in the jabber room - the assumption/hope was that
everyone in the jabber room was listening to the audio feed.
If that was a bad assumption, please send me an email
directly, and we'll do better in the future.

The overall conclusion of the BOF is that a new STORM
(STORage Maintenance) WG should be formed to pursue
essentially the program of work in the draft charter that
I sent to the lists earlier.  There will be a new
storm <at> ietf.org mailing list for this WG.

As all decisions in IETF meetings are confirmed on mailing
lists, now is the time to speak up if:
- anyone thinks that a WG should not be formed, or
- anyone thinks that one or more of the work items on the
	draft charter (see minutes) should not be done.
I will also be contacting some people directly to try to
ensure that there is at least one Internet-Draft author
for each work item.

Please also provide any other corrections to the minutes
(either to the list or directly to me).

Thanks,
--David
(Continue reading)

Black_David | 24 Mar 17:58 2009

STORM BOF: Presentations posted

The presentations for the STORM BOF on Thursday are now
posted at:

https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/74/materials.html

Scroll that page down to find the STORM BOF in the
Transport Area.

IMPORTANT: If you cannot attend the BOF in person and
think that a WG should be formed, please say so on the list.

My advice is that if you believe that any of the proposed
work should be done, then a WG is a *very good* idea because
a WG enables IETF's "rough consensus" techniques to be
applied (ensures work won't bog down in design issues).

I've done a "brain dump" into the main slide set - there
are a number of small items listed on the slides that have
been pointed out to me as worthy of attention.

One new item that I want to call attention to is that once
upon a time (2000), an IP Protocol Number was allocated for
what I believe to have been a precursor to the FCIP protocol.
FCIP does not use its own IP Protocol Number because it
uses TCP.  It would be a "good thing" for the new STORM WG
to investigate whether this number is actually unused and
hence can be returned to IANA for reassignment (these
numbers are a scarce resource).

Thanks,
(Continue reading)

Black_David | 24 Mar 03:03 2009

STORM WG - draft charter

I promised a draft charter before the BOF, so here it is.
This should look very familiar as it's based on the BOF
proposal that has been out for a while.  The FCIP item
below (may be possible to return an IP Protocol Number
to IANA) is new.

If the recommendation of the BOF is to form a Working Group,
the revised charter (with work items and milestones) will be
published to these lists for further review and comment before
the actual WG request goes to the IESG.

Proposed Working Group: STORM (STORage Maintenance)
	Transport (TSV) Area
Proposed Charter (First Draft) - March 23, 2009
-----------------------------------------------------------

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, FCIP and iFCP) 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
(Continue reading)

Julian Satran | 12 Mar 10:29 2009
Picon

Re: Storage Maintenance (storm) BOF reminder & requests

David,

For some reason I don't get the ips and rdma mailings.
I also interested but will not attend.

Thanks,
Julo


From: Kalman Meth/Haifa/IBM
To: Black_David <at> emc.com
Cc: Julian Satran/Haifa/IBM <at> IBMIL, "Chadalapaka, Mallikarjun B" <mallikarjun.chadalapaka <at> hp.com>
Date: 12/03/2009 09:27
Subject: Re: [Ips] Storage Maintenance (storm) BOF reminder & requests



David,
I am interested, but I will be unable to attend.

- Kalman





Black_David <at> emc.com
Sent by: ips-bounces <at> ietf.org

12/03/2009 01:28

To
<ips <at> ietf.org>, <rddp <at> ietf.org>
cc
imss <at> ietf.org, Black_David <at> emc.com
Subject
[Ips] Storage Maintenance (storm) BOF reminder & requests





This is a reminder that the Storage Maintenance BOF will
be held in about 2 weeks at the IETF meetings in San Francisco.
Please plan to attend if you're interested:

THURSDAY, March 26, 2009
Continental 1&2                   TSV                   storm                    Storage Maintenance BOF

The BOF description is at:
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ips/current/msg02669.html

The initial agenda is here:
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ips/current/msg02670.html

I'm going to go upload that initial agenda as the BOF agenda,
and it can be bashed at the meeting.

The primary purpose of this BOF is to answer two questions:
(1) What storage maintenance work (IP Storage, Remote Direct
                Data Placement) should be done?
(2) Should an IETF Working Group be formed to undertake that
                work?

Everyone gets to weigh in on these decisions, even those who
can't attend the BOF meeting.  Anyone who thinks that there is
work that should be done, and who cannot come to the BOF meeting
should say so on the IPS or RDDP mailing lists (and it'd be a
good idea for those who can come to do this).  As part of the
email, please indicate how you're interested in helping (author
or co-author of specific drafts, promise to review and comment
on specific drafts).

Here's a summary of the initial draft list of work items:
- iSCSI: Combine RFCs into one document, removing unused features.
- iSCSI: Interoperability report on what has been implemented and
                interoperates in support of Draft Standard status for iSCSI.
- iSCSI: Add backwards-compatible features to support SAM-4.
- iFCP: The Address Translation mode of iFCP needs to be deprecated.
- RDDP MPA: Small startup update for MPI application support.
- iSER: A few minor updates based on InfiniBand experience.

Additional work (e.g., updated/improved iSNS for iSCSI, MIB changes,
updated ipsec security profile [i.e., IKEv2-based]) is possible if
there's interest.

There are (at least) four possible outcomes:
(A) None of this work needs to be done.
(B) There are some small work items that make sense.  Individual
                drafts with a draft shepherd (i.e., David Black) will
                suffice.
(C) A working group is needed to undertake more complex work
                items and reach consensus on design issues.  The WG can
                be "virtual" and operate mostly via the mailing list
                until/unless controversial/contentious issues arise.
(D) There is a lot of complex work that is needed, and a WG
                that will plan to meet at every IETF meeting should be
                formed.

Please note that the IETF "rough consensus" process requires a
working group in practice to be effective.  This makes outcome
(C) look attractive to me, as:
- I'm coming under increasing pressure to limit travel, and
                the next two IETF meetings after San Francisco are not
                in the US.
- I'd rather have the "rough consensus" process available and
                not need it than need it and not have it available.

Setting an example for how to express interest ...

---------------
I think that the iSCSI single RFC and interoperability report are
good ideas, but I want to see a bunch of people expressing interest
in these, as significant effort is involved.  It might make sense
to do the single iSCSI RFC but put off the interoperability report
(the resulting RFC would remain at Proposed Standard rather than
going to Draft Standard), as I'm not hearing about major iSCSI
interoperability issues.

I think the latter four items (SAM-4 for iSCSI, deprecate iFCP
address translation, MPI fix to MPA and iSER fixes) should all
be done.

I plan to author the iFCP address translation deprecation draft,
and review all other drafts.

I think that a virtual WG should be formed that plans to do its
work primarily via the mailing list.  I believe the SAM-4 work
by itself is complex enough to need a working group - I would
expect design issues to turn up at least there and in determining
whether to remove certain iSCSI features, but I'm cautiously
optimistic that the mailing list is sufficient to work these
issues out (and concerned that travel restrictions are likely to
force use of the mailing list).

-----------------

Ok, who wants to go next?

Thanks,
--David
----------------------------------------------------
David L. Black, Distinguished Engineer
EMC Corporation, 176 South St., Hopkinton, MA  01748
+1 (508) 293-7953             FAX: +1 (508) 293-7786
black_david <at> emc.com        Mobile: +1 (978) 394-7754
----------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
Ips mailing list
Ips <at> ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ips


_______________________________________________
Ips mailing list
Ips <at> ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ips
Black_David | 12 Mar 00:28 2009

Storage Maintenance (storm) BOF reminder & requests

This is a reminder that the Storage Maintenance BOF will
be held in about 2 weeks at the IETF meetings in San Francisco.
Please plan to attend if you're interested:

THURSDAY, March 26, 2009
Continental 1&2  	TSV  	storm  	 Storage Maintenance BOF

The BOF description is at:
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ips/current/msg02669.html

The initial agenda is here:
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ips/current/msg02670.html

I'm going to go upload that initial agenda as the BOF agenda,
and it can be bashed at the meeting.

The primary purpose of this BOF is to answer two questions:
(1) What storage maintenance work (IP Storage, Remote Direct
	Data Placement) should be done?
(2) Should an IETF Working Group be formed to undertake that
	work?

Everyone gets to weigh in on these decisions, even those who
can't attend the BOF meeting.  Anyone who thinks that there is
work that should be done, and who cannot come to the BOF meeting
should say so on the IPS or RDDP mailing lists (and it'd be a
good idea for those who can come to do this).  As part of the
email, please indicate how you're interested in helping (author
or co-author of specific drafts, promise to review and comment
on specific drafts).

Here's a summary of the initial draft list of work items:
- iSCSI: Combine RFCs into one document, removing unused features.
- iSCSI: Interoperability report on what has been implemented and
	interoperates in support of Draft Standard status for iSCSI.
- iSCSI: Add backwards-compatible features to support SAM-4.
- iFCP: The Address Translation mode of iFCP needs to be deprecated.
- RDDP MPA: Small startup update for MPI application support.
- iSER: A few minor updates based on InfiniBand experience.

Additional work (e.g., updated/improved iSNS for iSCSI, MIB changes,
updated ipsec security profile [i.e., IKEv2-based]) is possible if
there's interest.

There are (at least) four possible outcomes:
(A) None of this work needs to be done.
(B) There are some small work items that make sense.  Individual
	drafts with a draft shepherd (i.e., David Black) will
	suffice.
(C) A working group is needed to undertake more complex work
	items and reach consensus on design issues.  The WG can
	be "virtual" and operate mostly via the mailing list
	until/unless controversial/contentious issues arise.
(D) There is a lot of complex work that is needed, and a WG
	that will plan to meet at every IETF meeting should be
	formed.

Please note that the IETF "rough consensus" process requires a
working group in practice to be effective.  This makes outcome
(C) look attractive to me, as:
- I'm coming under increasing pressure to limit travel, and
	the next two IETF meetings after San Francisco are not
	in the US.
- I'd rather have the "rough consensus" process available and
	not need it than need it and not have it available.

Setting an example for how to express interest ...

---------------
I think that the iSCSI single RFC and interoperability report are
good ideas, but I want to see a bunch of people expressing interest
in these, as significant effort is involved.  It might make sense
to do the single iSCSI RFC but put off the interoperability report
(the resulting RFC would remain at Proposed Standard rather than
going to Draft Standard), as I'm not hearing about major iSCSI
interoperability issues.

I think the latter four items (SAM-4 for iSCSI, deprecate iFCP
address translation, MPI fix to MPA and iSER fixes) should all
be done.

I plan to author the iFCP address translation deprecation draft,
and review all other drafts.

I think that a virtual WG should be formed that plans to do its
work primarily via the mailing list.  I believe the SAM-4 work
by itself is complex enough to need a working group - I would
expect design issues to turn up at least there and in determining
whether to remove certain iSCSI features, but I'm cautiously
optimistic that the mailing list is sufficient to work these
issues out (and concerned that travel restrictions are likely to
force use of the mailing list).

-----------------

Ok, who wants to go next?

Thanks,
--David
----------------------------------------------------
David L. Black, Distinguished Engineer
EMC Corporation, 176 South St., Hopkinton, MA  01748
+1 (508) 293-7953             FAX: +1 (508) 293-7786
black_david <at> emc.com        Mobile: +1 (978) 394-7754
----------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
Ips mailing list
Ips <at> ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ips

Black_David | 11 Feb 02:52 2009

STORM BOF date/time determination

Someone asked - when will we know whether it's Thu or Fri
(Mar 26 or 27) and what time the STORM BOF is?

The secretariat should have (or shortly will have) gathered
all the inputs for session scheduling for San Francisco.

According to this page:
	http://www.ietf.org/meetings/74/cutoff-dates.html
There should be a preliminary agenda for the SF meeting week
out this Friday.  That preliminary agenda inevitably leads to
multiple rounds of "<X> conflicts with <Y>, can we swap it with
<Z>" discussions, even though conflicts are an input to the
initial agenda.  Some conflicts are inevitably overlooked,
forgotten, or not noticed until the initial agenda is published
- think of this as a demonstration that IETF session scheduling
is at least an NP-Hard problem ;-).

The final agenda, with the STORM date, time and room should be
published on Mar 2.  That's 3+ weeks in advance, so reasonable
domestic airfares to SF should still be available.

Thanks,
--David
----------------------------------------------------
David L. Black, Distinguished Engineer
EMC Corporation, 176 South St., Hopkinton, MA  01748
+1 (508) 293-7953             FAX: +1 (508) 293-7786
black_david <at> emc.com        Mobile: +1 (978) 394-7754
----------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
Ips mailing list
Ips <at> ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ips


Gmane