Cut/paste error - First line should have said:
RFC publication has just been requested for the iSCSI Node
Architecture Key draft.
Sorry,
--David
----------------------------------------------------
David L. Black, Senior Technologist
EMC Corporation, 176 South St., Hopkinton, MA 01748
+1 (508) 293-7953 FAX: +1 (508) 293-7786
[email protected] Mobile: +1 (978) 394-7754
----------------------------------------------------
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Black, David
> Sent: Thursday, October 12, 2006 2:56 PM
> To: [email protected]
> Cc: Black, David
> Subject: Publication Requested: iSCSI Node Architecture Key
>
> RFC publication has just been requested for the VF MIB draft. The
> PROTO process (cf. draft-ietf-proto-wgchair-doc-shepherding-07.txt)
> is being used. Here is the PROTO writeup:
>
> Declarative Public Extension Key for iSCSI Node Architecture
> draft-ietf-ips-iscsi-nodearch-key-02.txt
>
> Requested Publication Status: Informational
> PROTO shepherd: David L. Black (IPS WG Chair)
> --------------------------------------------------------------
> ----------
>
> (1.a) Who is the Document Shepherd for this document?
>
> David L. Black <[email protected]>
>
> 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?
>
> Yes.
>
> (1.b) Has the document had adequate review both from key
> WG members
> and from key non-WG members?
>
> Yes.
>
> Does the Document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth
> or breadth of the reviews that have been performed?
>
> No - the WG went over this draft with a fine-toothed comb.
>
> (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 those issues have been discussed in the WG and the
> WG has indicated that it still wishes to advance
> the document,
> detail those concerns here.
>
> The design of this key is based on HTTP mechanisms that have
> been abused
> to identify browsers, causing interoperability issues rising
> to the level
> of refusing to allow certain browsers to access certain web
> sites. This
> draft contains language intended to strongly discourage that
> sort of abuse,
> and while it is impossible to prohibit such abuse, in
> practice it can be
> accomplished by other means (e.g., look for presence or
> absence of a private
> key specific to an implementation). The iSCSI protocol is
> also considerably
> constrained (functionally) by comparison to web content
> (e.g., Javascript),
> and initial iSCSI interoperability experience has been good.
>
> This document is being published as Informational because RFC
> 3720 indicates
> that this class of key specification should be published as
> informational.
> RFC 2119 terminology is nonetheless appropriate because this document
> specifies a protocol extension.
>
> (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?
>
> There is solid WG consensus behind this document.
>
> (1.f) <Not sent to WG>
>
> (1.g) Has the Document Shepherd verified that the
> document satisfies
> all ID nits? (See http://www.ietf.org/ID-Checklist.html and
> http://tools.ietf.org/tools/idnits/). Boilerplate
> checks are
> not enough; this check needs to be thorough.
>
> The online checker finds no problems.
>
> (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?
>
> No.
>
> 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].
>
> No.
>
> (1.i) 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 iSCSI protocol, described in RFC 3720, allows for extension
> items to the protocol in the form of Private or Public Extension
> Keys. This Internet-Draft describes a Public Extension Key for the
> purpose of enhancing iSCSI supportability. The key
> accomplishes this
> objective by allowing iSCSI nodes to communicate
> architecture details
> during the iSCSI login sequence. The receiving node can then use
> this information for enhanced logging and support.
>
> Working Group Summary
>
> This document was carefully reviewed in the WG primarily
> for security
> concerns (protecting sensitive information about what is
> running) and
> the possible abuse of this key in a fashion similar to the abuse of
> the HTTP "Server" and "User-Agent" fields that can damage
> interoperability. As a result of this WG attention, the draft
> contains specific text to address both concerns.
>
> Document Quality
>
> There are implementations of functionality similar to that provided
> by this key.
>
> This draft was reviewed for the IPS WG by David L. Black.
>
> Thanks,
> --David
>
> ----------------------------------------------------
> David L. Black, Senior Technologist
> EMC Corporation, 176 South St., Hopkinton, MA 01748
> +1 (508) 293-7953 FAX: +1 (508) 293-7786
> [email protected] Mobile: +1 (978) 394-7754
> ----------------------------------------------------
>
>
_______________________________________________
Ips mailing list
[email protected]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ips
lmpx.com only provides a reader for public news (NNTP) servers. It is not
affiliated with the servers or forums shown here and is not responsible for
the content of articles, which is written by their respective authors.