Re: [Ips] Storage Maintenance (storm) BOF reminder & requests

Hi David,

My recommendation would be to defer the interoperability survey and draft c=
onsolidation work for iSCSI.=A0 I do believe however that at least iSCSI SA=
M-4 compliance work in a backwards compatible fashion is required.=A0 I cur=
rently plan to contribute to/author this work, although I unfortunately wil=
l not be able to attend the San Francisco meeting in person.

I tend to prefer your option C for the same reasons you cited.=A0=A0Option =
B=A0*might be* workable as the next preferred option.=A0 One other=A0sugges=
tion I have=A0is that even with a virtual WG (option C), I believe we will =
need to move at a relatively slower pace compared to the IPS WG because giv=
en the economy, everyone has enough workload on their plates in their compa=
nies and has fewer cycles to stay on top of the WG mailing list.=A0 IMHO, t=
his will need to be factored into milestones and such in the=A0planning pro=
cess.=A0 =


Thanks.=A0--
Mallikarjun Chadalapaka =




----- Original Message ----
> From: "[email protected]" <[email protected]>
> To: [email protected]; [email protected]
> Cc: [email protected]; [email protected]
> Sent: Wednesday, March 11, 2009 4:28:10 PM
> 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=A0 =A0=A0=A0 TSV=A0 =A0=A0=A0 storm=A0 =A0=A0=A0 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
> =A0=A0=A0 Data Placement) should be done?
> (2) Should an IETF Working Group be formed to undertake that
> =A0=A0=A0 work?
> =

> Everyone gets to weigh in on these decisions, even those who
> can't attend the BOF meeting.=A0 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).=A0 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
> =A0=A0=A0 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.=A0 Individual
> =A0=A0=A0 drafts with a draft shepherd (i.e., David Black) will
> =A0=A0=A0 suffice.
> (C) A working group is needed to undertake more complex work
> =A0=A0=A0 items and reach consensus on design issues.=A0 The WG can
> =A0=A0=A0 be "virtual" and operate mostly via the mailing list
> =A0=A0=A0 until/unless controversial/contentious issues arise.
> (D) There is a lot of complex work that is needed, and a WG
> =A0=A0=A0 that will plan to meet at every IETF meeting should be
> =A0=A0=A0 formed.
> =

> Please note that the IETF "rough consensus" process requires a
> working group in practice to be effective.=A0 This makes outcome
> (C) look attractive to me, as:
> - I'm coming under increasing pressure to limit travel, and
> =A0=A0=A0 the next two IETF meetings after San Francisco are not
> =A0=A0=A0 in the US.
> - I'd rather have the "rough consensus" process available and
> =A0=A0=A0 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.=A0 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.=A0 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=A0 01748
> =A0+1...=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 FAX: +1 (508) 293-7786
> [email protected]=A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 Mobile: =A0+1=A0(978)=A0394-7754=A0
> ----------------------------------------------------
> _______________________________________________
> Ips mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ips



      =