Subject: RE: [Ips] No IPS meeting in Minneapolis

From: [email-masked]
Date: Fri, 24 Oct 2003 15:15:40 -0400

Bill,

> I am not sure how I feel about these becoming WG items... However I do
> think it warrants a meeting - if only an hour on Tuesday to allow folks
> to propose a charter change to include iSER/DA whatever.
> 
> We have documents
> There appears to be interest based on all of the "me too" e-mails
> 
> Seems to be time to discuss this, can we get a meeting scheduled before
> the Tuesday deadline ?

Could I suggest organizing a lunch of interested people immediately
after the RDDP WG meeting on Tuesday in Minneapolis?  Scheduling an
IPS WG meeting on this short notice that would in practice be a BOF
for these drafts isn't likely (IMHO).  Also, if such a meeting were
to happen, there's a good likelihood that it would be counted against
RFC 2418's "two BOF maximum" guideline (be careful what you wish for).
In contrast, an informally organized lunch would not count as an
official BOF.

Since I left it out of my last message, those interested in work on
iSER and DA (iSCSI over RDMA) should also be consulting RFC 2418 on
working group formation as part of thinking about a future BOF.

Thanks,
--David
----------------------------------------------------
David L. Black, Senior Technologist
EMC Corporation, 176 South St., Hopkinton, MA  01748
+1 (508) 293-7953             FAX: +1 (508) 293-7786
[email-masked]        Mobile: +1 (978) 394-7754
----------------------------------------------------

_______________________________________________
Ips mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ips

---

From: "bill" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 24 Oct 2003 12:29:30 -0700

I am curious...

Why do you think adding two deliverables to an existing WG should count
as a BOF.  Now if the work were completely unrelated to current IPS work
- I'd agree with you.  However saying, we need an RFC to discuss porting
iSCSI over a new Layer 4 (iSER) with input from an additional WG (RDDP)
as the Layer 4 protocol - is unrelated is a stretch.  In fact I would
expect the first thing for an AD to say if there was an iSER BOF is -
why isn't this in IPS ?  So my question to you is "Why don't you want to
discuss this work in IPS ?"

I see a rather strong concensus to at least discuss the iSER/DA work in
the IPS - that would be hard to ignore.  If the end result is that you
want iSCSI to go dormant/shut down - that is fine.  However I think
there is more work to be done.

Bill

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of
[email-masked]
Sent: Friday, October 24, 2003 12:16 PM
To: [email-masked]; [email-masked]
Subject: RE: [Ips] No IPS meeting in Minneapolis

Bill,

> think it warrants a meeting - if only an hour on Tuesday to allow 
> folks to propose a charter change to include iSER/DA whatever.
> 
> We have documents
> Seems to be time to discuss this, can we get a meeting scheduled 
> before the Tuesday deadline ?

Could I suggest organizing a lunch of interested people immediately
after the RDDP WG meeting on Tuesday in Minneapolis?  Scheduling an IPS
WG meeting on this short notice that would in practice be a BOF for
these drafts isn't likely (IMHO).  Also, if such a meeting were to
happen, there's a good likelihood that it would be counted against RFC
2418's "two BOF maximum" guideline (be careful what you wish for). In
contrast, an informally organized lunch would not count as an official
BOF.

Since I left it out of my last message, those interested in work on iSER
and DA (iSCSI over RDMA) should also be consulting RFC 2418 on working
group formation as part of thinking about a future BOF.

Thanks,
--David

---

From: Caitlin Bestler <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 24 Oct 2003 15:24:13 -0500

> there is more work to be done.

I agree. From the IPS charter:

	There is significant interest in using IP-based networks to
	transport block storage traffic. This group will pursue the
	pragmatic approach of encapsulating existing protocols, such
	as SCSI and Fibre Channel, in an IP-based transport or transports.

One of the benefits of defining block storage protocols over RDMA
is that it automatically encompasses all other reliable IP transports.

In my opinion, the current solution of specifying a complex protocol
that incorporates *many* transport features into the application
protocol is not a desirable final solution. It is a very prudent
initial solution. But the final solution should neither lock in
application layer simulation of SCTP features over TCP nor encourage
the development of ULP-specific hardware/capabilities in preference to
application neutral capabilities.

I believe it is well within the scope of a plain reading of the
current charter to continue the work to define iSCSI over SCTP
and/or RDMA. Realistically, I can think of almost no reason to
not simply lump the SCTP part under RDMA.

One of the reasons I favor working on the problem within the IETF
is that it will provide a proper forum for ensuring that iSER is
defined such that it can be deployed over iWARP/SCTP and so that
it will work on a *generic* iWARP RNIC -- not just one with a
specific model of shared receive queue.

Given the extensive amount of detailed work that is plainly
evident in the submitted drafts there is clearly interest in
this type of deployment. It certainly doesn't look to be
something they whipped up over a few lunches on their spare
time.

Now it would have been ideal if a general problem discussion
had occurred *first* within an open forum. But even if the draft
authors "jumped the gun", we should still thank them for their
work and continue the refinement process within an IETF WG,
rather than treating it as though it were something totally
unrelated to an existing WG.

Caitlin Bestler - [email-masked] - http://asomi.com/