Subject: [Ips] iSCSI Corrections/Clarifications Publication Request

From: [email-masked]
Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2007 16:36:27 -0500

Publication of the iSCSI Corrections and Clarifications draft
as a Proposed Standard RFC has been requested.  Here's the
PROTO writeup:
 
		 iSCSI Corrections and Clarifications 
		draft-ietf-ips-iscsi-impl-guide-06.txt

Requested Publication Status: Proposed Standard
------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

David L. Black (ips WG Chair)

          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, mostly.  The Document Shepherd has been delayed in reviewing the
document, and has a number of comments on the document.  The Document
Shepherd is comfortable having his review comments treated as initial
IETF Last Call comments in order to not further delay publication of
this draft, unless the IANA registry issue requires the draft to be
revised prior to IETF Last Call - see (1.i) below.

   (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.   Portions of this document deal with iSCSI task management
and iSCSI error handling, where there are a limited number of
individuals with expertise sufficient to perform a thorough review.
This document has received sufficient review from such individuals,
including the document author and the principal author/editor of
RFC 3720, the main iSCSI specification.

   (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 the WG has discussed those issues and has indicated
          that it still wishes to advance the document, detail those
          concerns here.

No.

          Has an IPR disclosure related to this document
          been filed?  If so, please include a reference to the
          disclosure and summarize the WG discussion and conclusion on
          this issue.

No.

   (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 WG as a whole understands and agrees with this document.

   (1.f)  Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme
          discontent?  If so, please summarise the areas of conflict in
          separate email messages to the Responsible Area Director.  (It
          should be in a separate email because this questionnaire is
          entered into the ID Tracker.)

No.

   (1.g)  Has the Document Shepherd personally 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.

idnits 2.03.6 finds no problems.

          Has the document
          met all formal review criteria it needs to, such as the MIB
          Doctor, media type and URI type reviews?

None are applicable.

   (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, the possible downward reference found by idnits is to a published
ANSI standard (T10 SPC-3 is ANSI INCITS 408-2005), and hence is
not a concern.

   (1.i)  Has the Document Shepherd verified that the document IANA
          consideration section exists and is consistent with the body
          of the document?

Yes.

          If the document specifies protocol
          extensions, are reservations requested in appropriate IANA
          registries?  Are the IANA registries clearly identified?

No, as no such registries exist.  The Responsible Area Director and/
or the IESG need to determine whether this draft warrants creation
of a set of iSCSI registries based on RFC 3720 and this document.

          If the document creates a new registry, does it define the
          proposed initial contents of the registry and an allocation
          procedure for future registrations?  Does it suggest a
          reasonable name for the new registry?  See [RFC2434].

Not applicable.

          If the
          document describes an Expert Review process has Shepherd
          conferred with the Responsible Area Director so that the IESG
          can appoint the needed Expert during the IESG Evaluation?

Not applicable.

   (1.j)  Has the Document Shepherd verified that sections of the
          document that are written in a formal language, such as XML
          code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, etc., validate correctly in
          an automated checker?

Not applicable.

   (1.k)  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

     iSCSI is a SCSI transport protocol that maps the SCSI
     architecture and command sets onto TCP/IP.  RFC 3720 defines the 
     iSCSI protocol.  This document compiles the clarifications to 
     the original protocol definition in RFC 3720 to serve as a 
     companion document for the iSCSI implementers. This document 
     updates RFC 3720 and the text in this document supersedes the 
     text in RFC 3720 when the two differ. 

          Working Group Summary

	This document consists of clarification items collected during
	a period of more than one year based on implementation
experience.
	A number of the items have engendered significant working group
	discussion about the appropriate clarification or change.  The
	ips WG strongly supports the resulting clarifications and
changes
	in this document.

          Document Quality

	There are numerous implementations of iSCSI, and the entire
	content of this document is based on issues that have arisen
	from implementation experience.  There are a large number of
	individuals listed in the acknowledgements section who have
	contributed to this document based on their expertise and/or
	implementation experience.

	David Black (ips WG chair) and Julian Satran (RFC 3720 editor)
	have reviewed this document for the ips WG.

          Personnel

	Document Shepherd: David Black (ips WG chair)
	Responsible Area Director: Lars Eggert (Transport Area)

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