Subject: [Ips] Draft DC minutes

From: [email-masked]
Date: Fri, 12 Nov 2004 11:26:25 -0500

Send comments/corrections/etc. to me (and the list if you
think they're important).  This also serves as an announcement
of the sense of the room decisions taken in DC - in the
absence of objection on the list, they are the rough consensus
of the IPS WG.  The most important decision is on the limit
for # of outstanding unexpected PDUs for iSER - see below.

Thanks,
--David

IP Storage (ips) WG - Washington DC minutes - DRAFT
---------------------------------------------------

The IP Storage (ips) WG meets 1300-1500 on Monday,
November 8, 2004 at the IETF meetings in Washington, DC.

AGENDA and MINUTES
------------------

Letters in square brackets (e.g., [A]) indicate first character in
filename of presenation.

Administrivia, agenda bashing, draft status review, etc.: [A] 15 min
		David Black, EMC (co-chair)
	Blue sheets
	Note Well
	Milestones - iSER and DA to ADs in April/May 2005
	Draft status
		- All protocol drafts are in RFC Editor queue
		- iSNS DHC option will be there shortly after meeting
		- FCIP SLP template probably needs an errata to correct
			version # in template from 0.1 to 1.0
		- Waiting on new versions of iSCSI MIB, iSCSI Auth MIB
			and FCIP MIB from draft authors.
		- iFCP and iSNS MIBs need author attention

Any open MIB issues: [no slides] 15 min  Elizabeth Rodriguez,
		Dot Hill (co-chair)
	FC Management MIB (draft-ietf-ips-fcmgmt-mib-05.txt)
	- New field to be added to deal with a MIB instance that
		covers multiple switches.  This was submitted as an
		IETF Last Call comment, but got lost.  -06 version of
		MIB will be produced containing all agreed-to changes
		from -05 plus this change.  Message will be sent to
		list to do a quick review of this final change.

iSER and DA: [B] 1 hour  Mike Ko, IBM
	(draft-ietf-ips-iser-00.txt)
	(draft-ietf-ips-iwarp-da-00.txt)
	iSER = iSCSI Extensions for RDMA
	DA = Datamover Architecture for iSCSI

	Control of unexpected PDUs
	- Sense of room: Using a key to limit # of outstanding unexpected
		PDUs is the right approach.  "None" = "No Limit" is allowed.
		Minimum value (e.g., to avoid 1 or 2) is TBD [Open Issue]
	- Specified default value (None vs. specific value) in
		absence of negotiation will be taken to list. [Open Issue]
	- Draft will need to contain discussion of unexpected vs.
		expected PDUs and buffering requirements, and when
		an unexpected PDU ceases to be outstanding.
	- Add cautionary notes to avoid NOP-out and NOP-in abuse,
		but take this to the list, as there may be a possibility
		of being able to specify initiator behavior that always
		works. [Open Issue]

iSER over InfiniBand: [C] 30 min  John Hufferd, IBM
	No draft available.  This time period is for discussion of
	possible work to support iSCSI over InfiniBand via iSER.
	The primary purpose of this time is a discussion of whether
	the IETF should undertake work in this area, and if so, what
	scope of work is appropriate (e.g., to avoid all of us
	having to become InfiniBand experts).

	Proposal is iSER over InfiniBand to enable use of iSCSI

	Terminology: RDMAP should be for the RDDP WG protocol only,
		and not generalized as proposed in the slides.

	Resolution: No real conclusion.  Enabling reuse of IETF
		technology like iSCSI/iSER in other environments is a
		"good thing" in principle.  OTOH, our AD is concerned
		about InfiniBand protocols (e.g., RC) getting out
		onto the Internet and causing problems.  Proponents should
		produce Internet-Draft addressing architecture, intended
		usage, Infiniband to IP/Internet proxy (in particular,
		protocol stack layer diagram) and proposed division of
		work between IETF and IBTA that avoids need for serious
		InfiniBand expertise in IETF (e.g., the work needed
		to cope with old implementations of InfiniBand appears
		to belong in IBTA, not IETF).  Based on WG discussion
		of that draft, the WG co-chairs, and ADs can determine
		appropriate next steps.

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

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Mon, 22 Nov 2004 19:39:53 -0500

Having seen no comments, these are the final minutes that will be
sent to the secretariat for the proceedings, and the decisions
made in DC are now the rough consensus of the IP Storage WG.

The iSER draft authors should take this as a cue to start
list discussion on their [Open Issue]'s identified below.

Thanks,
--David

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On 
> Behalf Of [email-masked]
> Sent: Friday, November 12, 2004 11:26 AM
> To: [email-masked]
> Subject: [Ips] Draft DC minutes
>