iSCSI Protocol (Consolidated)
Requested Publication Status: Proposed Standard
PROTO shepherd: David L. Black (STORM WG Co-Chair)
(1.a) Who is the Document Shepherd for this document? 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?
David L. Black (firstname.lastname@example.org) is the Document Shepherd and a co-author
of the draft. The Document Shepherd has reviewed this version of the document
and believes that it is ready for forwarding to the IESG for publication.
(1.b) Has the document had adequate review both from key WG members
and from key non-WG members? Does the Document Shepherd have
any concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews that
have been performed?
The document has had sufficient review from key WG members, from implementers
who work on important iSCSI implementations (both initiator and target) outside
the WG and from key members of INCITS Technical Committee T10, the organization
responsible for SCSI standards.
(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?
Yes - the document updates the iSCSI profile of IPsec to include IPsec v3
(4300-series RFCs). The security directorate has already designated a
well-qualified reviewer for this draft, Paul Hoffman, co-chair of the
ipsecme WG. The document shepherd will work with the SecDir reviewer
to ensure that this concern is addressed in the Sec-Dir review.
(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. 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
(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 consensus behind this document is solid; the WG as a whole
understands this document and agrees with the need for a single
consolidated iSCSI spec and the minor updates contained in this draft.
(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.)
(1.g) Has the Document Shepherd personally verified that the
document satisfies all ID nits? (See the Internet-Drafts Checklist
and http://tools.ietf.org/tools/idnits/). Boilerplate checks are
not enough; this check needs to be thorough.
Yes. idnits generates a number of comments that do not represent
actual problems with the draft.
Has the document
met all formal review criteria it needs to, such as the MIB
Doctor, media type and URI type reviews?
(1.h) Has the document split its references into normative and
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? 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].
This document normatively references draft-ietf-storm-iscsi-sam-05, for
which an RFC publication request is being submitted along with the
publication request for this document.
In addition, this document normatively references five SCSI standards
that have been developed by INCITS Technical Committee T10 (www.t10.org),
namely SAM2, SAM3, SAM4, SBC and SPC3. As completed standards, these
are not publicly available documents, because T10's parent standards
organizations fund their operations in part by charging for copies of
standards. The document shepherd, David Black, is also the official
T10 Liaison to the IETF and in that role, he has been authorized by T10
to provide copies of these standards to IETF participants for their personal
use in IETF activities. If copies of these standarads are desired, please
contact the document shepherd, David Black (email@example.com), directly.
(1.i) Has the Document Shepherd verified that the document IANA
consideration section exists and is consistent with the body
of the document? If the document specifies protocol
extensions, are reservations requested in appropriate IANA
registries? Are the IANA registries clearly identified? 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 [RFC5226]. 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?
The IANA Considerations section has been checked - the IANA Considerations
are clear and do not require any actions by IANA.
(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?
(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:
This document describes a transport protocol for SCSI that works
on top of TCP. The iSCSI protocol aims to be fully compliant with
the standardized SCSI Architecture Model (SAM-2). RFC 3720
defined the original iSCSI protocol. RFC 3721 discusses iSCSI
Naming examples and discovery techniques. Subsequently, RFC 3980
added an additional naming format to iSCSI protocol. RFC 4850
followed up by adding a new public extension key to iSCSI. RFC
5048 offered a number of clarifications and a few improvements and
corrections to the original iSCSI protocol.
This document obsoletes RFCs 3720, 3980, 4850 and 5048 by
consolidating them into a single document and making additional
updates to the consolidated specification. This document also
updates RFC 3721 and RFC 3723. The text in this document thus
supersedes the text in all the noted RFCs wherever there is a
difference in semantics.
Working Group Summary
There was very little dissent in the WG over the functionality in this
document. Significant WG discussion was devoted to correctly specifying
SCSI-related identifiers used by this draft. Rob Elliott and Ralph
Weber (key members of the T10 SCSI standards organization) provided
significant assistance in working through the identifier issues.
iSCSI implementers from Dell, EMC, Microsoft, NetApp, RedHat and VMware
have reviewed this document for quality and consistency with existing
implementations. The reviews indicate that the changes are clearly
specified, and are not expected to be significantly disruptive to add to