Subject: [Ips] Publication Requested: iSCSI Node Architecture Key

From: [email-masked]
Date: Thu, 12 Oct 2006 14:55:44 -0400

RFC publication has just been requested for the VF MIB draft.  The
PROTO process (cf. draft-ietf-proto-wgchair-doc-shepherding-07.txt)
is being used.  Here is the PROTO writeup:

      Declarative Public Extension Key for iSCSI Node Architecture
                draft-ietf-ips-iscsi-nodearch-key-02.txt

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

   (1.a)  Who is the Document Shepherd for this document?

David L. Black <[email-masked]>

          Has the Document Shepherd personally reviewed this version
          of the document and, in particular, does he or she believe
this
          version is ready for forwarding to the IESG for publication?

Yes.

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

Yes.

          Does the Document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth
          or breadth of the reviews that have been performed?

No - the WG went over this draft with a fine-toothed comb.

   (1.c)  Does the Document Shepherd have concerns that the document
          needs more review from a particular or broader perspective,
          e.g., security, operational complexity, someone familiar with
          AAA, internationalization or XML?

No.

   (1.d)  Does the Document Shepherd have any specific concerns or
          issues with this document that the Responsible Area Director
          and/or the IESG should be aware of?  For example, perhaps he
          or she is uncomfortable with certain parts of the document, or
          has concerns whether there really is a need for it.  In any
          event, if those issues have been discussed in the WG and the
          WG has indicated that it still wishes to advance the document,
          detail those concerns here.

The design of this key is based on HTTP mechanisms that have been abused
to identify browsers, causing interoperability issues rising to the
level
of refusing to allow certain browsers to access certain web sites.  This
draft contains language intended to strongly discourage that sort of
abuse,
and while it is impossible to prohibit such abuse, in practice it can be
accomplished by other means (e.g., look for presence or absence of a
private
key specific to an implementation).  The iSCSI protocol is also
considerably
constrained (functionally) by comparison to web content (e.g.,
Javascript),
and initial iSCSI interoperability experience has been good.

This document is being published as Informational because RFC 3720
indicates
that this class of key specification should be published as
informational.
RFC 2119 terminology is nonetheless appropriate because this document
specifies a protocol extension.

   (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?

There is solid WG consensus behind this document.

   (1.f) <Not sent to WG>

   (1.g)  Has the Document Shepherd verified that the document satisfies
          all ID nits?  (See http://www.ietf.org/ID-Checklist.html and
          http://tools.ietf.org/tools/idnits/).  Boilerplate checks are
          not enough; this check needs to be thorough.

The online checker finds no problems.

   (1.h)  Has the document split its references into normative and
          informative?

Yes.

          Are there normative references to documents that
          are not ready for advancement or are otherwise in an unclear
          state?  If such normative references exist, what is the
          strategy for their completion?

No.

          Are there normative references
          that are downward references, as described in [RFC3967]?  If
          so, list these downward references to support the Area
          Director in the Last Call procedure for them [RFC3967].

No.

   (1.i)  The IESG approval announcement includes a Document
          Announcement Write-Up.  Please provide such a Document
          Announcement Write-Up.  Recent examples can be found in the
          "Action" announcements for approved documents.  The approval
          announcement contains the following sections:

          Technical Summary

   The iSCSI protocol, described in RFC 3720, allows for extension
   items to the protocol in the form of Private or Public Extension
   Keys.  This Internet-Draft describes a Public Extension Key for the
   purpose of enhancing iSCSI supportability.  The key accomplishes this
   objective by allowing iSCSI nodes to communicate architecture details
   during the iSCSI login sequence.  The receiving node can then use
   this information for enhanced logging and support.

          Working Group Summary

   This document was carefully reviewed in the WG primarily for security
   concerns (protecting sensitive information about what is running) and
   the possible abuse of this key in a fashion similar to the abuse of
   the HTTP "Server" and "User-Agent" fields that can damage
   interoperability.  As a result of this WG attention, the draft
   contains specific text to address both concerns.

          Document Quality

   There are implementations of functionality similar to that provided
   by this key.

   This draft was reviewed for the IPS WG by David L. Black.

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: [email-masked]
Date: Thu, 12 Oct 2006 15:25:12 -0400

Cut/paste error - First line should have said:

RFC publication has just been requested for the iSCSI Node
Architecture Key draft.

Sorry,
--David

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Black, David 
> Sent: Thursday, October 12, 2006 2:56 PM
> To: [email-masked]
> Cc: Black, David
> Subject: Publication Requested: iSCSI Node Architecture Key
> 
>           of the document and, in particular, does he or she 
> believe this
> to identify browsers, causing interoperability issues rising 
> to the level
> draft contains language intended to strongly discourage that 
> sort of abuse,
> accomplished by other means (e.g., look for presence or 
> absence of a private
> key specific to an implementation).  The iSCSI protocol is 
> also considerably
> constrained (functionally) by comparison to web content 
> (e.g., Javascript),
> This document is being published as Informational because RFC 
> 3720 indicates