Subject: [Ips] DA Publication Requested

From: [email-masked]
Date: Fri, 21 Oct 2005 12:20:39 -0400

Publication as an RFC has just been requested on the DA draft.
The PROTO process (cf. draft-ietf-proto-wgchair-doc-shepherding-05.txt)
is being used.  Here is the PROTO writeup:
 
               Datamover Architecture for iSCSI (DA) 
                 draft-ietf-ips-iwarp-da-03.txt

Requested Publication Status: Informational
PROTO shepherd: David L. Black (IPS WG Chair)
------------------------------------------------------------------------

   1.a) Have the chairs personally reviewed this version of the Internet
        Draft (ID), and in particular, do they believe this ID is ready
        to forward to the IESG for publication?

Yes.

   1.b) Has the document had adequate review from both key WG members
        and key non-WG members?

Yes.

        Do you have any concerns about the
        depth or breadth of the reviews that have been performed?

No.

   1.c) Do you have concerns that the document needs more review from a
        particular (broader) perspective (e.g., security, operational
        complexity, someone familiar with AAA, etc.)?

No.

   1.d) Do you have any specific concerns/issues with this document that
        you believe the ADs and/or IESG should be aware of?  For
        example, perhaps you are uncomfortable with certain parts of the
        document, or have concerns whether there really is a need for
        it.  In any event, if your issues have been discussed in the WG
        and the WG has indicated it that it still wishes to advance the
        document, detail those concerns in the write-up.

No.  The presence of "iwarp" in the draft name is an historical artifact
- the described architecture has more general applicability beyond the
iWARP protocol suite.

   1.e) How solid is the WG consensus behind this document? Does it
        represent the strong concurrence of a few individuals, with
        others being silent, or does the WG as a whole understand and
        agree with it?

The portion of the WG interested in RDMA understands and agrees with
this document.

   1.f) [... not sent to the WG ...]

   1.g) Have the chairs verified that the document adheres to all of the
        ID nits? (see http://www.ietf.org/ID-Checklist.html).

There are minor boilerplate issues, plus several dozen non-ASCII and
control characters.  All of these problems will be corrected if a
revised draft is required as part of the publication process, otherwise
the RFC Editor will deal with them as part of editing for publication.

   1.h) Is the document split into normative and informative references?

Yes.

        Are there normative references to IDs, where the IDs are not
        also ready for advancement or are otherwise in an unclear state?
        (note here that the RFC editor will not publish an RFC with
        normative references to IDs, it will delay publication until all
        such IDs are also ready for publication as RFCs.)

No.

   1.i) For Standards Track and BCP documents, the IESG approval
        announcement includes a write-up section with the following
        sections:

        *    Technical Summary

        *    Working Group Summary

        *    Protocol Quality

   1.j) Please provide such a write-up.  Recent examples can be found in
        the "protocol action" announcements for approved documents.

N/A - this is to be published as an Informational RFC.

----------------------------------------------------
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