|
»
STORM proposed charter - 31 May 2009 version
|
View:
New views
9 Messages
—
Rating Filter:
Alert me
|
 |
STORM proposed charter - 31 May 2009 version
by Black_David
::
Rate this Message:
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@... mailing list: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/storm Finally - this is a near-final reminder that the rddp@... mailing list will be closing soon - all discussion of RDDP protocols will move to the storm@... 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@... Mobile: +1 (978) 394-7754 ---------------------------------------------------- Proposed Working Group: STORM (STORage Maintenance) Transport (TSV) Area Proposed Charter (Draft of May 31, 2009) ----------------------------------------------------------- Chairs: - David L. Black <black_david@...> - TBD Transport Area Director(s): - Magnus Westerlund <magnus.westerlund@...> - Lars Eggert <lars.eggert@...> Transport Area Advisor: - Lars Eggert <lars.eggert@...> Mailing Lists: General Discussion: storm@... To Subscribe: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/storm Archive: http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/storm/index.html Description of Working Group: 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 and FCIP) 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 scope, including any work on version 2 of any of these protocols. Security for these protocols is based on the functionality specified in RFC 3723 (Securing Block Storage Protocols over IP); the working group does not intend to make major changes or updates to that RFC. Stability is critical to the usage of these protocols, making backwards compatibility with existing implementations a requirement for all protocol changes and additions. This is a requirement for implementation compatibility - if all implementations of a protocol have done something different than what the RFC specified, then it is appropriate for a new RFC to document what the "running code" actually does and deprecate the unimplemented original behavior. Initial list of work items: (1) iSCSI: Combine RFCs 3720 (iSCSI), 3980 (NAA names), 4850 (node architecture key) and 5048 (corrections/clarifications) into one draft (3720bis), removing features that are not implemented in practice. This draft should be prepared so that it could become a Draft Standard RFC, but it is up to the WG to decide whether to advance it to Draft Standard. (2) iSCSI: Add features to support at least SAM-4 (4th version of the SCSI architecture) in a backwards-compatible fashion, as iSCSI is currently based on SAM-2. This will be a separate draft from the iSCSI update in the previous item. The Working group may add additional minor useful iSCSI features to this draft, including features from draft versions of SAM-5. The iSCSI MIB (RFC 4544) should be updated to provide SNMP support for new features as appropriate. (3) FCIP: IP Protocol number 133 was allocated to a precursor of the FCIP protocol in 2000, but that allocated number is not used by FCIP. The working group will consider whether that allocated number should be returned to IANA for future reallocation. (4) iFCP: The Address Translation mode of iFCP needs to be deprecated (SHOULD NOT implement or use), as there are significant technical problems with it as specified in RFC 4172, and moreover, only the Address Transparent mode of iFCP is in use. This change is to be done via a short draft that updates RFC 4172, as opposed to a complete rewrite of RFC 4172. A combined draft is expected that encompasses items (3) and (4); this draft should also update the iFCP MIB (RFC 4369) to deprecate support for iFCP Address Translation mode. (5) RDDP MPA: Good support for MPI applications requires a small update to MPA startup functionality to allow either end of the connection to initiate. (6) iSER: Experience with Infiniband implementations suggests a few minor updates to reflect what has been done in practice. The working group is expected to maintain good working relationships with INCITS Technical Committee T10 (SCSI standards) and INCITS Technical Committee T11 (Fibre Channel standards) via overlaps in membership as opposed to appointment of formal liaisons. The liaison process (including IAB appointment of a liaison or liaisons) remains available for use if needed. Recent changes in INCITS rules have removed public access to some T10 and T11 standards documents that are expected to be needed for the WG's program of work. Arrangements have been made with T10 and T11 for IETF participants to obtain copies of specific standards their personal use in IETF work as needed; contact the WG chair(s) for details. Goals and Milestones: July 2009 First version of FCIP protocol number and iFCP Address Translation mode draft. Aug 2009 First version of iSCSI SAM-4 (and other) new features draft. Aug 2009 First version of RDDP MPA startup change draft Sep 2009 Working Group Last Call on FCIP protocol number and iFCP address change draft Sep 2009 First version of combined iSCSI draft (3720bis) Oct 2009 First version of iSER update draft Oct 2009 Working Group Last Call on RDDP MPA startup change draft. Dec 2009 Functionally complete iSCSI SAM-4 (and other) new features draft. Feb 2010 Working Group Last Call on iSER update draft Mar 2010 Working Group Last Call on iSCSI SAM-4 (and other) new features draft. Apr 2010 Working Group decision on whether to seek Draft Standard RFC status for the combined iSCSI draft (3720bis). [Note: decision may be made significantly before this date.] Sep 2010 Working Group Last Call on combined iSCSI draft (3720bis) _______________________________________________ rddp mailing list rddp@... https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rddp |
|
|
Re: [Ips] STORM proposed charter - 31 May 2009 version
by David Harrington
::
Rate this Message:
Hi,
I am satisfied with the text of the charter. The milestones look aggressive to me, but you have a better feel for the amount of work involved. Thanks for the update, David Harrington dbharrington@... ietfdbh@... dharrington@... > -----Original Message----- > From: ips-bounces@... [mailto:ips-bounces@...] On > Behalf Of Black_David@... > Sent: Sunday, May 31, 2009 4:03 PM > To: storm@... > Cc: imss@...; ips@...; rddp@... > Subject: [Ips] STORM proposed charter - 31 May 2009 version > Importance: High > > 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@... mailing list: > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/storm > > Finally - this is a near-final reminder that the rddp@... > mailing list will be closing soon - all discussion of RDDP > protocols will move to the storm@... 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@... Mobile: +1 (978) 394-7754 > ---------------------------------------------------- > _______________________________________________ rddp mailing list rddp@... https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rddp |
|
|
Re: STORM proposed charter - 31 May 2009 version
by arkady kanevsky
::
Rate this Message:
David,
The description of RDDP MPA bullet is too narrow. (5) RDDP MPA: Good support for MPI applications requires a small update to MPA startup functionality to allow either end
of the connection to initiate. This bullet should also cover ORD/IRD negotiation as part of connection setup. Also current RDDP connection setup is part of MPA
spec which is primarily for TCP stream markers. This bullet should provide RDDP connection setup for both TCP and SCTP and for any message based protocol. How about:
(5) RDDP Connection Setup: Good support for MPI applications requires a small update to MPA startup functionality to allow either end
of the connection to initiate. Add RDMA Read credits to RDDP Connection Setup. Make RDDP connection setup to be applicable for any message based
protocols, including but not limited to TCP with MPA markers and SCTP. I hope it is not too late to beef up this bullet. Thanks, Arkady
On Sun, May 31, 2009 at 4:03 PM, <Black_David@...> wrote: What I believe is the final draft of the proposed charter -- Cheers, Arkady Kanevsky _______________________________________________ rddp mailing list rddp@... https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rddp |
|
|
Re: STORM proposed charter - 31 May 2009 version
by Black_David
::
Rate this Message:
Arkady,
I'll beef up
the bullet, but probably not with that
degree of
specifics. Thanks for pointing this out,
and I
apologize for the delay in responding.
Thanks,
_______________________________________________ rddp mailing list rddp@... https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rddp |
|
|
Re: STORM proposed charter - 31 May 2009 version
by Black_David
::
Rate this Message:
And here's what I just did to that bullet ... (5) RDDP Connection Setup: Good support for MPI applications requires a small update to MPA startup functionality to allow either end of the connection to initiate. In addition, a couple of minor changes to RDDP connection setup (based on implementation experience) are needed to generalize it for effective use with protocols that are not based on IP. I'm about to
send the result to Lars for wider review ...
Thanks,
_______________________________________________ rddp mailing list rddp@... https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rddp |
|
|
Re: STORM proposed charter - 31 May 2009 version
by Pat Thaler
::
Rate this Message:
Did you mean "are not based on TCP" rather than "are not
based on IP"?
Arkady was asking about connection setup for SCTP which the
former fits but not the latter.
Regards,
Pat From: ips-bounces@... [mailto:ips-bounces@...] On Behalf Of Black_David@... Sent: Monday, June 15, 2009 11:53 AM To: Black_David@...; arkady.kanevsky@... Cc: imss@...; ips@...; storm@...; rddp@... Subject: Re: [Ips] [rddp] STORM proposed charter - 31 May 2009 version And here's what I just did to that bullet ... (5) RDDP Connection Setup: Good support for MPI applications requires a small update to MPA startup functionality to allow either end of the connection to initiate. In addition, a couple of minor changes to RDDP connection setup (based on implementation experience) are needed to generalize it for effective use with protocols that are not based on IP. I'm about to
send the result to Lars for wider review ...
Thanks,
_______________________________________________ rddp mailing list rddp@... https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rddp |
|
|
Re: STORM proposed charter - 31 May 2009 version
by Black_David
::
Rate this Message:
Hmm .. I
read:
"but not limited to TCP with MPA
markers and SCTP" as being motivated
by non-IP uses, e.g., InfiniBand and
FC. Arkady?
Thanks,
_______________________________________________ rddp mailing list rddp@... https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rddp |
|
|
Re: STORM proposed charter - 31 May 2009 version
by arkady kanevsky
::
Rate this Message:
David,
I was not proposing to extend it beyond IP based protocols.
Specifically I am trying to ensure that new spec can support
TCP/MPA and SCTP. Other protocols that are not IP based
or not even Ethernet based, in my view, are outside the scope of IETF.
In essense, it is RDMA connection setup on top of message
based protocol. So It be done on top of TCP/MPA, or SCTP or
maybe some other message based protocols that use IP.
Thanks,
Arkady
On Mon, Jun 15, 2009 at 2:45 PM, <Black_David@...> wrote:
-- Cheers, Arkady Kanevsky _______________________________________________ rddp mailing list rddp@... https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rddp |
|
|
Re: STORM proposed charter - 31 May 2009 version
by Black_David
::
Rate this Message:
Ok, I'll fix
it.
Thanks,
_______________________________________________ rddp mailing list rddp@... https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rddp |
| Free embeddable forum powered by Nabble | Forum Help |
