Re: BOF proposal for San Francisco: updates to RDDP protocols

Dave,

No, I don't have a proposed day, but I'll note this conflict
when I ask for the BOF to be scheduled.

Thanks,
--David
 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Minturn, Dave B [mailto:[email protected]] 
> Sent: Monday, January 12, 2009 6:55 PM
> To: Black, David; [email protected]
> Subject: RE: BOF proposal for San Francisco: updates to RDDP protocols
> 
> David,  
> 
> Do you have a proposed day for the BOF?  I'm asking because 
> the OpenFabrics Alliance conference is running concurrently 
> on March 22->25 in Sonoma (~50 miles away).  It would be 
> great if the BOF could be held on the latter part of the IETF 
> conference to accommodate the iWARP folks.
> 
> Thx,
> Dave Minturn  
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On 
> Behalf Of [email protected]
> Sent: Sunday, January 11, 2009 5:13 PM
> To: [email protected]
> Subject: [rddp] BOF proposal for San Francisco: updates to 
> RDDP protocols
> Importance: High
> 
> FYI - the RDDP protocols are included in this BOF proposal,
> although the only RDDP work item in my initial list is a
> small update to MPA that's motivated by support for MPI
> applications.
> 
> Thanks,
> --David
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Black, David 
> Sent: Sunday, January 11, 2009 8:11 PM
> To: [email protected]
> Cc: Black, David
> Subject: BOF proposal for San Francisco: updates to iSCSI and 
> other IPS
> protocols
> Importance: High
> 
> I'm about to propose a Birds of a Feather (BOF) session for IETF in
> San Francisco to discuss forming a working group (tentative name:
> STORM [STORage Maintenance] to update iSCSI and other IPS protocols.
> The primary purpose of this work would be to reflect implementation
> experience in the specifications - this is NOT intended to be a
> means of working on version 2 or even version 1.1.
> 
> The initial draft of the BOF proposal follows - by the time the BOF
> is held (and hopefully well before, there will be a draft charter) -
> the purpose of the BOF meeting will be to discuss the draft charter
> and proposed plan of work in order to decide whether to ask that
> a working group be formed.  I wrote this text quickly, so all
> suggestions for edits are welcome.
> 
> A number of people have already expressed interest in the draft
> work items listed below - in particular, Julian Satran, Kalman
> Meth and Mallikarjun Chadalapaka have all indicated an intention
> to work on the updated iSCSI specification.  Additional work items
> can be added - it would be useful for anyone suggesting a work item
> to indicate their intended role/contribution for that work item
> (e.g., draft author).  For the implementation survey (basis for
> possibly taking iSCSI to Draft Standard status), I'd be interested
> in hearing from anyone who's interested *and* has worked on past
> imp
> 
> Thanks,
> --David
> ------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> Proposed Transport Area (TSV) BOF: STORM (STORage Maintenance)
> Proposed for IETF San Francisco (March 22-27, 2009)
> 
> The IETF ips (IP Storage) and rddp (Remote Direct Data Placement)
> working
> groups have produced a number of protocols (e.g., iSCSI) that 
> have been
> implemented and are being used (to varying degrees).  The purpose of
> this
> BOF is to determine whether a working group should be formed for
> protocol
> maintenance and update based primarily on implementation experience.
> This work is envisioned to encompass:
> - Implementation-driven revisions and updates to existing protocols.
> - Interoperability reports so that some of the resulting revised
> protocols
> 	can be taken to Draft Standard RFC status.
> - Minor protocol changes or additions; this is anticipated to include
> 	iSCSI features for SAM-4 compliance and an MPA startup change
> 	needed to better support MPI applications.
> The work will not include wholesale changes to the existing protocols;
> this is not intended to be an opportunity to produce version 2 (or
> even version 1.1) of any of the protocols.  Backwards compatibility
> with existing implementations will be required for all changes and
> additions.
> 
> Initial draft list of work items:
> - iSCSI: Combine RFCs 3720 (iSCSI), 3980 (NAA names), 4850 (node
> architecture
> 	key) and 5048 (corrections/clarifications) into one document,
> removing
> 	features that are not implemented in practice (e.g., markers).
> - iSCSI: Interoperability report on what has been implemented and is
> known to
> 	interoperate in support of taking iSCSI to Draft Standard RFC
> status.
> 	The decision about whether to target Draft Standard RFC status
> would
> 	be discussed in the BOF in San Francisco - this may entail
> updates to
> 	RFC 3722 [stringprep for iSCSI] and 3723 [security].
> - iSCSI: Add features to support SAM-4 (4th version of SCSI
> architecture)
> 	in a backwards-compatible fashion.  iSCSI is currently based on
> SAM-2.
> - iFCP: The Address Translation mode of iFCP needs to be 
> retired (SHOULD
> NOT
> 	implement or use), as there are problems with it, and only the
> Address
> 	Transparent mode of iFCP is in use.  A short draft should be
> sufficient
> 	to do this (i.e., a complete rewrite of RFC 4172 is not
> anticipated).
> - RDDP MPA: Good support for MPI applications requires a 
> small update to
> the
> 	startup functionality to allow either end of the connection to
> initiate.
> - iSER: Experience with InfiniBand implementations suggest a few minor
> 	updates to reflect what has been done in practice.
> 
> Additional work (e.g., updated/improved iSNS for iSCSI, MIB 
> changes) is
> possible if there's interest.  I believe I have private expressions of
> interest or commitment to the items explicitly listed above.
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> rddp mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rddp
> 
>