From david.black@emc.com Fri Feb 3 06:04:50 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: storm@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: storm@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B491D21F858B for ; Fri, 3 Feb 2012 06:04:50 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -109.347 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-109.347 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=1.252, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id u1P3krqGqoSh for ; Fri, 3 Feb 2012 06:04:50 -0800 (PST) Received: from mexforward.lss.emc.com (mexforward.lss.emc.com [128.222.32.20]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 262E321F8585 for ; Fri, 3 Feb 2012 06:04:49 -0800 (PST) Received: from hop04-l1d11-si01.isus.emc.com (HOP04-L1D11-SI01.isus.emc.com [10.254.111.54]) by mexforward.lss.emc.com (Switch-3.4.3/Switch-3.4.3) with ESMTP id q13E4jmC001957 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Fri, 3 Feb 2012 09:04:46 -0500 Received: from mailhub.lss.emc.com (mailhub.lss.emc.com [10.254.222.226]) by hop04-l1d11-si01.isus.emc.com (RSA Interceptor) for ; Fri, 3 Feb 2012 09:04:31 -0500 Received: from mxhub34.corp.emc.com (mxhub34.corp.emc.com [10.254.93.82]) by mailhub.lss.emc.com (Switch-3.4.3/Switch-3.4.3) with ESMTP id q13E4Qfs024823 for ; Fri, 3 Feb 2012 09:04:26 -0500 Received: from mxhub37.corp.emc.com (128.222.70.104) by mxhub34.corp.emc.com (10.254.93.82) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 8.3.213.0; Fri, 3 Feb 2012 09:04:25 -0500 Received: from mx14a.corp.emc.com ([169.254.1.94]) by mxhub37.corp.emc.com ([128.222.70.104]) with mapi; Fri, 3 Feb 2012 09:04:24 -0500 From: To: Importance: high X-Priority: 1 Date: Fri, 3 Feb 2012 09:04:24 -0500 Thread-Topic: storm WG: No Paris meeting Thread-Index: AczifLwDnRjYLsenRzOIyFHO2ZxVNw== Message-ID: <7C4DFCE962635144B8FAE8CA11D0BF1E05AD13B706@MX14A.corp.emc.com> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: acceptlanguage: en-US Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 X-EMM-MHVC: 1 Subject: [storm] storm WG: No Paris meeting X-BeenThere: storm@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Storage Maintenance WG List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 03 Feb 2012 14:04:50 -0000 The storm WG will not meet in Paris in March. We have a schedule update on the iSCSI drafts for which RFC publication has already been requested (consolidated, new features [-sam-] and MIB); neither AD Review nor IETF Last Call is expected until after the Paris IETF meetings, and=20 hence there will be nothing in these drafts for the storm WG to discuss in Paris. Since the Paris meeting was tentatively scheduled to deal with potential issues arising from review of these drafts, that meeting will now be cancelled. When we resolve the final issue on the iSER draft, it'll join those 3 iSCSI drafts., Meanwhile, we need to turn our attention on the list to the RDMAP extension draft - at a minimum I have some editorial updates to the IANA Consideratio= ns text that I will send directly to the authors. The plan/intention is to work on this draft via the mailing list. FYI and Thanks, --David ---------------------------------------------------- David L. Black, Distinguished Engineer EMC Corporation, 176 South St., Hopkinton, MA=A0 01748 +1 (508) 293-7953=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 FAX: +1 (508) 293-778= 6 david.black@emc.com=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 Mobile: +1 (978) 394-7754 ---------------------------------------------------- From david.black@emc.com Fri Feb 3 08:49:12 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: storm@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: storm@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B56EC21F855A for ; Fri, 3 Feb 2012 08:49:12 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -109.387 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-109.387 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=1.212, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Ksxonxl8NtUD for ; Fri, 3 Feb 2012 08:49:12 -0800 (PST) Received: from mexforward.lss.emc.com (mexforward.lss.emc.com [128.222.32.20]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2BA8721F854F for ; Fri, 3 Feb 2012 08:49:11 -0800 (PST) Received: from hop04-l1d11-si03.isus.emc.com (HOP04-L1D11-SI03.isus.emc.com [10.254.111.23]) by mexforward.lss.emc.com (Switch-3.4.3/Switch-3.4.3) with ESMTP id q13Gn6bO020423 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Fri, 3 Feb 2012 11:49:10 -0500 Received: from mailhub.lss.emc.com (mailhubhoprd02.lss.emc.com [10.254.221.253]) by hop04-l1d11-si03.isus.emc.com (RSA Interceptor) for ; Fri, 3 Feb 2012 11:48:55 -0500 Received: from mxhub19.corp.emc.com (mxhub19.corp.emc.com [10.254.93.48]) by mailhub.lss.emc.com (Switch-3.4.3/Switch-3.4.3) with ESMTP id q13GmqNZ002189 for ; Fri, 3 Feb 2012 11:48:55 -0500 Received: from mx14a.corp.emc.com ([169.254.1.94]) by mxhub19.corp.emc.com ([10.254.93.48]) with mapi; Fri, 3 Feb 2012 11:48:54 -0500 From: To: Date: Fri, 3 Feb 2012 11:48:53 -0500 Thread-Topic: iSCSI Consolidated draft - IANA considerations text Thread-Index: Aczik7Ysi2Trkqm/QfCaSJ6UskPNpA== Message-ID: <7C4DFCE962635144B8FAE8CA11D0BF1E05AD13B7EE@MX14A.corp.emc.com> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: acceptlanguage: en-US Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 X-EMM-MHVC: 1 Subject: [storm] iSCSI Consolidated draft - IANA considerations text X-BeenThere: storm@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Storage Maintenance WG List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 03 Feb 2012 16:49:12 -0000 I just discovered that the iSCSI Consolidated draft is missing the IANA Con= siderations text to register the value 1 for iSCSIProtocolLevel. The following text sh= ould get the job done: -------------------- RFC Editor Note: Add the following text to the end of Section 14. IANA Cons= iderations IANA is requested to add the following entry to the "iSCSI Protocol Level" registry created by Section 9 of [iSCSI-SAM]: Assigned value: 1 RFC Reference: [RFCyyyy] RFC Editor: Please replace yyyy in the above reference with the RFC numb= er assigned to this document and remove this note. Expert Review of this assignment has been performed by David Black in his role as the T10 Liaison to IETF. The value 1 is part of the initial contents of this registry; for that reason, IANA is instructed to assign the value 1 as indicated above and apply the sequential assignment polic= y for this registry (as specified in [iSCSI-SAM]) to future assignments, starting with the value 3. -------------------- I've written this text as an RFC Editor Note, in the unlikely event that a = new version of the iSCSI consolidated draft is not required :-). My expectatio= n is that a new version will be required, and so the next version should incorpo= rate this text. Thanks, --David ---------------------------------------------------- David L. Black, Distinguished Engineer EMC Corporation, 176 South St., Hopkinton, MA=A0 01748 +1 (508) 293-7953=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 FAX: +1 (508) 293-778= 6 david.black@emc.com=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 Mobile: +1 (978) 394-7754 ---------------------------------------------------- From iesg-secretary@ietf.org Fri Feb 3 10:06:40 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: storm@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: storm@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4292421F8591; Fri, 3 Feb 2012 10:06:40 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id NijMmfk1AnRJ; Fri, 3 Feb 2012 10:06:39 -0800 (PST) Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B10C521F858E; Fri, 3 Feb 2012 10:06:39 -0800 (PST) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit From: The IESG To: IETF-Announce X-Test-IDTracker: no X-IETF-IDTracker: 3.64p1 Message-ID: <20120203180639.6647.5449.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Fri, 03 Feb 2012 10:06:39 -0800 Cc: storm mailing list , storm chair , RFC Editor Subject: [storm] Protocol Action: 'Enhanced RDMA Connection Establishment' to Proposed Standard (draft-ietf-storm-mpa-peer-connect-09.txt) X-BeenThere: storm@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Storage Maintenance WG List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 03 Feb 2012 18:06:40 -0000 The IESG has approved the following document: - 'Enhanced RDMA Connection Establishment' (draft-ietf-storm-mpa-peer-connect-09.txt) as a Proposed Standard This document is the product of the STORage Maintenance Working Group. The IESG contact persons are David Harrington and Wesley Eddy. A URL of this Internet Draft is: http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-storm-mpa-peer-connect/ Technical Summary This document extends iWARP (rddp) RDMA connection establishment with two functions that apply to the adaptation layer between RDMA functionality and the transport protocol. The first extension broadens MPA (adaptation to TCP) to enable connection establishment without initial data to send in support of applications structured as a collection of peers. The second extension improves connection setup for both MPA/TCP and the SCTP adaptation by adding support for standardized exchange of resource availability (queue depth) information. Working Group Summary This document makes small additions to existing protocols. There has been clear WG recognition that this functionality is needed to match the usage of these protocols by an important class of applications, and no significant WG dissent from the design in this document. Document Quality There are multiple existing implementations of the iWARP (rddp) RDMA protocols that have plans to add the functionality specified in this document. Hemal Shah reviewed the near-final version of this draft and found some important corrections that needed to be made. Personnel Document Shepherd: David L. Black (david.black@emc.com) Responsible Area Director: David Harrington (ietfdbh@comcast.net) RFC Editor Note please add this text at the end of section 1.1 "RTR indications are optional, and are carried by existing RDMA message types, specifically a zero length FULPDU Send message, a zero length RDMA Read message or a zero length RDMA write message. The presence vs. absence of the RTR indication and the type of RDMA message to use are negotiated by control flags in Enhanced RDMA Connection Establishment Data specified by this document (see Section 9). RDMA implementations are often tightly integrated with application libraries and hardware, hence the flexibility to use more than one type of RDMA message enables implementations to choose message types that are less disruptive to the implementation structure. When an RTR indication is used, and MPA connection setup negotiation indicates support for multiple RDMA message types as RTR indications by both the initiator and responder, the initiator selects one of the supported RDMA message types as the RTR indication at the initiator’s sole discretion." From cbm@chadalapaka.com Fri Feb 3 12:25:15 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: storm@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: storm@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7432421F8510 for ; Fri, 3 Feb 2012 12:25:15 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.001, BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id IM2OQbcCkG5v for ; Fri, 3 Feb 2012 12:25:15 -0800 (PST) Received: from snt0-omc3-s15.snt0.hotmail.com (snt0-omc3-s15.snt0.hotmail.com [65.55.90.154]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E492D21F8504 for ; Fri, 3 Feb 2012 12:25:14 -0800 (PST) Received: from SNT106-DS17 ([65.55.90.137]) by snt0-omc3-s15.snt0.hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675); Fri, 3 Feb 2012 12:25:14 -0800 X-Originating-IP: [131.107.0.85] X-Originating-Email: [cbm@chadalapaka.com] Message-ID: From: Mallikarjun Chadalapaka To: , References: <7C4DFCE962635144B8FAE8CA11D0BF1E05AD13B7EE@MX14A.corp.emc.com> In-Reply-To: <7C4DFCE962635144B8FAE8CA11D0BF1E05AD13B7EE@MX14A.corp.emc.com> Date: Fri, 3 Feb 2012 12:25:13 -0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 14.0 Thread-Index: AQJsojlbfeNFWfa0InxeZbT58JeN0pTsH0ZQ Content-Language: en-us X-OriginalArrivalTime: 03 Feb 2012 20:25:14.0526 (UTC) FILETIME=[EFAFB3E0:01CCE2B1] Subject: Re: [storm] iSCSI Consolidated draft - IANA considerations text X-BeenThere: storm@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Storage Maintenance WG List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 03 Feb 2012 20:25:15 -0000 Thanks David, that sounds like a plan. Mallikarjun -----Original Message----- From: storm-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:storm-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf = Of david.black@emc.com Sent: Friday, February 03, 2012 8:49 AM To: storm@ietf.org Subject: [storm] iSCSI Consolidated draft - IANA considerations text I just discovered that the iSCSI Consolidated draft is missing the IANA Considerations text to register the value 1 for iSCSIProtocolLevel. The following text should get the job done: -------------------- RFC Editor Note: Add the following text to the end of Section 14. IANA Considerations IANA is requested to add the following entry to the "iSCSI Protocol Level" registry created by Section 9 of [iSCSI-SAM]: Assigned value: 1 RFC Reference: [RFCyyyy] RFC Editor: Please replace yyyy in the above reference with the RFC number assigned to this document and remove this note. Expert Review of this assignment has been performed by David Black in his role as the T10 Liaison to IETF. The value 1 is part of the = initial contents of this registry; for that reason, IANA is instructed to = assign the value 1 as indicated above and apply the sequential assignment = policy for this registry (as specified in [iSCSI-SAM]) to future = assignments, starting with the value 3. -------------------- I've written this text as an RFC Editor Note, in the unlikely event that = a new version of the iSCSI consolidated draft is not required :-). My expectation is that a new version will be required, and so the next = version should incorporate this text. Thanks, --David ---------------------------------------------------- David L. Black, Distinguished Engineer EMC Corporation, 176 South St., Hopkinton, MA=A0 01748 +1 (508) 293-7953=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 FAX: +1 (508) = 293-7786 david.black@emc.com=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 Mobile: +1 (978) 394-7754 ---------------------------------------------------- _______________________________________________ storm mailing list storm@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/storm From iesg-secretary@ietf.org Thu Feb 9 10:41:36 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: storm@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: storm@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4AFD121E8037; Thu, 9 Feb 2012 10:41:36 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.557 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.557 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.042, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id iVBp1WHrfI2k; Thu, 9 Feb 2012 10:41:35 -0800 (PST) Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4BFBF21E803D; Thu, 9 Feb 2012 10:41:35 -0800 (PST) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: The IESG To: IETF-Announce X-Test-IDTracker: no X-IETF-IDTracker: 3.64p1 Message-ID: <20120209184135.16807.56269.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Thu, 09 Feb 2012 10:41:35 -0800 Cc: storm mailing list , storm chair , RFC Editor Subject: [storm] Protocol Action: 'IANA Registries for the RDDP (Remote Direct Data Placement) Protocols' to Proposed Standard (draft-ietf-storm-rddp-registries-02.txt) X-BeenThere: storm@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Storage Maintenance WG List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 09 Feb 2012 18:41:36 -0000 The IESG has approved the following document: - 'IANA Registries for the RDDP (Remote Direct Data Placement) Protocols' (draft-ietf-storm-rddp-registries-02.txt) as a Proposed Standard This document is the product of the STORage Maintenance Working Group. The IESG contact persons are David Harrington and Wesley Eddy. A URL of this Internet Draft is: http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-storm-rddp-registries/ Technical Summary The original RFCs that specified the RDDP protocol suite did not create IANA registries for RDDP error codes, operation codes and function codes. Extensions to the RDDP protocols now require these registries to be created. This memo creates the RDDP registries, populates them with values defined in the original RDDP RFCs, and provides RFC5226 guidance to IANA for future assignment of code points within these registries. Working Group Summary AD Review of draft-ietf-storm-mpa-peer-connect raised a concern that multiple documents defined error codes and operations codes, and this might be better in a registry. WG consensus was that a registry wasn't needed yet and could be put off until additional RDDP work was done. Gen-Art review and subsequent IESG discusses forced their hand. This document creates the recommended registry, and draft-ietf-storm-mpa-peer-connect-09 has been modified to refer to these registries. Document Quality There are multiple implementations of the RDDP protocols to which these new registries apply. Personnel Document Shepherd: David L. Black (david.black@emc.com) Responsible Area Director: David Harrington