Document Writeup
As required by RFC 4858, this is the current template for the Document
Shepherd Write-Up.
Changes are expected over time. This version is dated 24 February 2012.
STORM WG
draft-ietf-storm-rdmap-ext
January 10, 2014
(1) What type of RFC is being requested (BCP, Proposed Standard,
Internet Standard, Informational, Experimental, or Historic)? Why
is this the proper type of RFC? Is this type of RFC indicated in the
title page header?
Proposed Standard.
The RFC type is appropriate because the protocol specifies extensions
to RFC5040, which is also classified Proposed Standard. The extensions are
upwardly compatible, not experimental, and request that IANA commit the
extension's opcodes and two new registries to the existing RDDP Registries.
The RFC Type in the draft's title page header reads: "Intended status: Standards Track".
(2) 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
This document specifies extensions to the IETF Remote Direct Memory
Access Protocol (RDMAP [RFC5040]). RDMAP provides read and write
services directly to applications and enables data to be transferred
directly into Upper Layer Protocol (ULP) Buffers without
intermediate data copies. The extensions specified in this document
provide the following capabilities and/or improvements: Atomic
Operations and Immediate Data.
Working Group Summary
The extensions add Atomic Operations and Immediate Data to the RDMAP
Protocol. Other RDMA transport protocols define the functionality added by
these extensions leading to differences in RDMA applications and/or
Upper Layer Protocols. Removing these differences in the transport
protocols simplifies these applications and ULPs.
The STORM Working Group chartered this work in mid-2011, and while
no significant dissent was encountered, the document spent an extended
time in the WG owing to other WG priorities. When work resumed in 2013,
the document received substantial attention and review. Four update
cycles resulted in the final text. There was no controversy and consensus
was easily reached.
Document Quality
The document is of high quality and is well written. The authors represent
companies which deliver industry implementations of the RDDP protocol, and
discussion in the STORM WG by developers of upper layers and applications
indicated strong interest in using the extensions.
Personnel
Document Shepherd: Tom Talpey (storm WG co-chair, ttalpey@microsoft.com)
Responsible Area Director: Martin Stiemerling (Transport, mls.ietf@gmail.com)
(3) Briefly describe the review of this document that was performed by
the Document Shepherd. If this version of the document is not ready
for publication, please explain why the document is being forwarded to
the IESG.
The Document Shepherd personally reviewed the document numerous times
during the Working Group cycle, and as a contributor to all the RDDP RFCs,
considers the document to be of high quality and the extensions well architected.
Many other WG contributors also reviewed, and all comments were addressed
in a thorough manner. The Shepherd considers the document fully ready for
publication.
(4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or
breadth of the reviews that have been performed?
No, as detailed above.
(5) Do portions of the document need review from a particular or from
broader perspective, e.g., security, operational complexity, AAA, DNS,
DHCP, XML, or internationalization? If so, describe the review that
took place.
No, the extensions are specific to the RDMAP RFC5040 protocol and do
not introduce nor depend on external WGs or from broader perspectives.
Security issues were carefully reviewed in the WG to ensure the extensions
aligned with existing RDMAP security considerations and with DDP/RDMAP
Security (RFC5042).
(6) Describe any specific concerns or issues that the Document Shepherd
has 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.
The Document Shepherd has no concerns, and additionally is not aware of
any concerns from any other individual.
(7) Has each author confirmed that any and all appropriate IPR
disclosures required for full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78
and BCP 79 have already been filed. If not, explain why.
Yes, the Document Shepherd has obtained recent direct responses from
all five named authors to this question. All indicated that they were aware
of no IPR requiring disclosure, and had no intention to file any.
(8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document?
If so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR
disclosures.
No IPR disclosures have been filed, according to the tools page as of
this date. No discussion of potential IPR was brought up in the WG.
(9) 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 consensus is solid, representing the concurrence of numerous
active WG contributors well-versed in the RDDP protocols. No concerns
have been raised.
(10) 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 publicly available.)
No appeals have been threatened or filed.
(11) Identify any ID nits the Document Shepherd has found in this
document. (See http://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/ and the Internet-Drafts
Checklist). Boilerplate checks are not enough; this check needs to be
thorough.
Two nits are reported by the tool. A mention of RFC5040 in the abstract
appears within brackets and triggers a warning, which in the opinion of
the Shepherd is harmless. A second reference to "RFCXXXX" is a note to
the RFC Editor. Both these can and will be easily corrected by the RFC
Editor before publication, as needed.
(12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review
criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.
No formal review is necessary, as the document contains no MIB, media
or URI types.
(13) Have all references within this document been identified as
either normative or informative?
Yes.
(14) 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 plan for their completion?
No such references are present in the document.
(15) Are there downward normative references references (see RFC 3967)?
If so, list these downward references to support the Area Director in
the Last Call procedure.
No downward normative references are present in the document.
(16) Will publication of this document change the status of any
existing RFCs? Are those RFCs listed on the title page header, listed
in the abstract, and discussed in the introduction? If the RFCs are not
listed in the Abstract and Introduction, explain why, and point to the
part of the document where the relationship of this document to the
other RFCs is discussed. If this information is not in the document,
explain why the WG considers it unnecessary.
The document extends RFC5040, and will not change its status.
RFC5040 is listed in the abstract and discussed in the introduction.
(17) Describe the Document Shepherd's review of the IANA considerations
section, especially with regard to its consistency with the body of the
document. Confirm that all protocol extensions that the document makes
are associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries.
Confirm that any referenced IANA registries have been clearly
identified. Confirm that newly created IANA registries include a
detailed specification of the initial contents for the registry, that
allocations procedures for future registrations are defined, and a
reasonable name for the new registry has been suggested (see RFC 5226).
The IANA Considerations section was carefully reviewed and its
Proposed contents discussed by the WG. The Shepherd agrees with
the actions it proposes, which include adding 4 values to an existing
registry, and adding two newly-defined registries to the existing "RDDP
registries" set. The "RDMAP Queue Numbers" addition represents a
prior omission, and is therefore a required improvement.
(18) List any new IANA registries that require Expert Review for future
allocations. Provide any public guidance that the IESG would find
useful in selecting the IANA Experts for these new registries.
The new IANA registries will not require future Expert Review beyond
the normal diligence applied to review of such requests.
(19) Describe reviews and automated checks performed by the Document
Shepherd to validate sections of the document written in a formal
language, such as XML code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, etc.
Not applicable.