Stream Control Transmission Protocol (SCTP) Direct Data Placement (DDP) Adaptation
draft-ietf-rddp-sctp-07

All DISCUSSes have cleared, but we're waiting for IANA to decide if this ID should be approved and then go on hold with IANA or if I should keep it in AD Followup until the required IANA registry is set up after draft-ietf-tsvwg-addip-sctp has been approved.

IANA Last Call Comments:

Upon approval of this document IANA understands it must
complete three actions.

In the RSVP Parameters registry located at:

http://www.iana.org/assignments/rsvp-parameters

IANA will add two new C-Types under the existing
SESSION Class (Class 1) for the two new RSVP objects,
as follows:

Class
Number Class Name Reference
------ ----------------------- ---------
1 SESSION [RFC2205]

Class Types or C-Types:

tbd GENERIC-AGGREGATE-IP4 SESSION
tbd GENERIC-AGGREGATE-IP6 SESSION

In addition, in the RSVP Parameters registry located at:

http://www.iana.org/assignments/rsvp-parameters

IANA will also create a new Class-Num for the SESSION-OF-INTEREST
class. The class number for the SESSION-OF-INTEREST class will be determined by IANA and allocated from the range 128 to 183.

Class
Number Class Name Reference
------ ----------------------- ---------
tbd SESSION-OF-INTEREST

For this class, IANA will create two new C-Types: GENERIC-AGG-IP4-SOI
and GENERIC-AGG-IP6-SOI.

Class
Number Class Name Reference
------ ----------------------- ---------
tbd SESSION-OF-INTEREST

Class Types or C-Types:

tbd GENERIC-AGG-IP4-SOI
tbd GENERIC-AGG-IP6-SOI

IANA understands these are the only actions required upon
approval of this document

IANA Last Call Comment:

Upon approval of this document IANA understands that three IANA actions are required.

The first action asks for registration of codepoints in a registry that is yet to be created.

The registry is to be created upon publication of draft-ietf-tsvwg-addip-sctp.
However, that document has not reached last call or been published. Should the registration of these codepoints wait for the approval of the document that creates the registry?

The document also asks to add two new balues to the SCTP Payload Protocol
Identifier registry located at http://www.iana.org/assignments/sctp-parameters.
The document suggests two possible values for those PPIDs, but the suggested values are already in use. Upon approval of this document IANA will register the following values in the SCTP Payload Protocol Identifier registry:

VALUE -- DESCRIPTION
----------------------
tbd -- DDP Segment Chunk
tbd -- DDP Stream Session Control

State Change Notice email list have been change to rddp-chairs@tools.ietf.org, rrs@cisco.com, caitlinb@broadcom.com from rddp-chairs@tools.ietf.org, rrs@cisco.com, caitlinb@broadcom.com, jpink@microsoft.com, sganguly@yahoo.com, hemal@broadcom.com, vivk@us.ibm.com

PROTO writeup:

Stream Control Transmission Protocol (SCTP) Remote Direct Memory Access
            (RDMA) Direct Data Placement (DDP) Adaptation
                    draft-ietf-rddp-sctp-02.txt

Requested Publication Status: Proposed Standard
PROTO shepherd: David L. Black (RDDP 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, primarily from WG members.

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

The draft has had limited review outside the WG.

  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.

  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?

Most of the WG is primarily interested in rddp over TCP.  There is limited
interest in SCTP.  The portion of the WG that is interested in SCTP
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 to the Responsible Area Director.

No.

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

The online ID nits checker says everything is ok.

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

Yes.  All references are normative.

        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.)

There are four normative references to Internet-Drafts:

o draft-ietf-rddp-ddp, draft-ietf-rddp-rdmap - publication has
already been requested.
o draft-ietf-tsvwg-sctpsocket, draft-ietf-tsvwg-addip-sctp -
I don't know the completion schedule for these tsvwg drafts.

  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.

-- Technical Summary

  This document describes a method to adapt Direct Data Placement (DDP)
  and Remote Direct Memory Access (RDMA) to Stream Control Transmission
  Protocol (SCTP) RFC2960 using a generic description found in
  the RDMA and DDP specifications.  This adaption provides a method
  for two peers to know that each side is performing DDP or RDMA thus
  enabling hardware acceleration if available.

  Some implementations may include this adaptation layer within their
  SCTP implementations to obtain maximum performance but the behavior
  of SCTP will be unaffected.  In order to accomplish this we specify
  the use of the new adaptation layer indication as defined in the
  SCTP ADDIP specification.

-- Working Group Summary

  In contrast to the lengthy discussion of how to adapt rddp to TCP,
  there has been very little controversy over or dissent from this
  draft's approach for adapting rddp to SCTP.

-- Protocol Quality

  The protocol has been reviewed for the rddp WG by David L. Black.
  Randy Stewart, an SCTP expert, is a co-author of this draft.

State Change Notice email list have been change to rddp-chairs@tools.ietf.org, rrs@cisco.com, caitlinb@broadcom.com, jpink@microsoft.com, sganguly@yahoo.com, hemal@broadcom.com, vivk@us.ibm.com from rddp-chairs@tools.ietf.org, rrs@cisco.com, caitlinb@siliquent.com, hemal.shah@intel.com, vivk@us.ibm.com, sganguly@yahoo.com

State Change Notice email list have been change to rddp-chairs@tools.ietf.org, rrs@cisco.com, caitlinb@siliquent.com, hemal.shah@intel.com, vivk@us.ibm.com, sganguly@yahoo.com from rddp-chairs@tools.ietf.org, rrs@cisco.com, caitlinb@siliquent.com, hemal.shah@intel.com, vivk@us.ibm.com, sganguly@yahoo.com, steph@sandburst.com, paul.culley@hp.com, uri@broadcom.com, recio@us.ibm.com, carrier@cray.com