Subject: [Ips] IMPORTANT: WG Last Call on NodeArchitecture Key changes

From: [email-masked]
Date: Mon, 16 Oct 2006 13:53:26 -0400

Everyone,

During AD Review of the NodeArchitecture key draft:

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

our AD (Lars) observed that the draft is of sufficient quality and
utility to be a standards-track RFC (i.e., be published as a proposed
standard RFC instead of as an informational RFC).  In order to do
that, we need to deal with the following language in Section 12.22
of RFC 3720:

   For IANA registered keys the string following X# must be
   registered with IANA and the use of the key MUST be described
   by an informational RFC.

Similar language exists for Y# digest formats and Z# authentication
methods.  The exclusion of experimental and standards track RFCs
is believed to be an oversight in all three cases.

A standards track RFC can update RFC 3720 to correct this oversight.

This is an IP Storage (ips) Working Group Last Call on the following
changes in the direction and content of the NodeArchitecture Key draft:
	(1) Publish the draft as a Proposed Standard RFC instead of
		as an Informational RFC.
	(2) Add language to the draft that updates RFC 3720 to allow
		experimental and standards track RFCs in addition to
		informational RFCs for X# negotiation keys, Y# digest
		formats, and Z# authentication methods.
This is a WG Last Call on direction only.  Actual text to realize
change (2) will be provided later [translation: I don't want to invest
the time in writing it if it's not going to be used ;-) ].

This WG Last Call will run through 1159pm prevailing Pacific Time (US)
on Monday, November 6th, 2006.  Any objection to, suggested
modification to, or comment on this proposed direction needs to be
posted to this list before the end of this WG Last Call.

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: William Studenmund <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 16 Oct 2006 12:36:15 -0700

> is believed to be an oversight in all three cases.

My thought when we did this was that if a key was going to be a  
proposed standard, we would not use the [XYZ]# space for it.

So rather than changing the text, why not just make the key  
"NodeArchitecture"? :-) My understanding is that existing  
implementations will (should?) react the same way to such a key as  
they would to X#NodeArchitecture (NotUnderstood), so we don't have an  
interoperation issue.

If the group wants to stick with X#, I am not opposed to changing the  
text.

Take care,

Bill

---

From: Lars Eggert <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 20 Oct 2006 15:26:02 +0200

On Oct 16, 2006, at 21:36, William Studenmund wrote:
> they would to X#NodeArchitecture (NotUnderstood), so we don't have  
> an interoperation issue.
>
> If the group wants to stick with X#, I am not opposed to changing  
> the text.

I *would* like to see this document go to PS. If the WG comes to  
consensus on either David's or your proposal, that'd be fine with me.

Lars
-- 
Lars Eggert                                     NEC Network Laboratories

---

From: Julian Satran <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 20 Oct 2006 17:06:29 +0200

As far as I can remember the reason we adopted the XYZ scheme is to 
clearly idetify keys as being part of the (explained in) RFC3720 or 
explained in some other document.
In view of this David's proposal is in line with what we had in mind.

Julo

Lars Eggert <[email-masked]> 
20/10/06 09:26

To
William Studenmund <[email-masked]>
cc
[email-masked], [email-masked]
Subject
Re: [Ips] IMPORTANT: WG Last Call on NodeArchitecture Key changes

Lars