STORM BOF time

I put everything in there except the meeting time.  Try this:

THURSDAY, March 26, 2009 *** 0900-1130 Morning Session I ***
Continental 1&2  	TSV  	storm  	 Storage Maintenance BOF

Sorry,
--David
 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Black, David 
> Sent: Wednesday, March 11, 2009 7:28 PM
> To: [email protected]; [email protected]
> Cc: [email protected]; Black, David
> Subject: Storage Maintenance (storm) BOF reminder & requests
> Importance: High
> 
> 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
> [email protected]        Mobile: +1 (978) 394-7754
> ----------------------------------------------------
> 
_______________________________________________
Ips mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ips