Internet Small Computer Systems Interface (iSCSI) SCSI Features
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 (email@example.com) is the Document Shepherd. 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
implementations) 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?
(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 these minor
(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 2.12.17 complained about some missing references, all of
which are covered by RFC Editor Notes in the document, and it also
flagged all references to SCSI standards as possible dowrefs (they aren't).
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-cons-xx,
which is in the RFC Editor's Queue.
In addition, this document normatively references three SCSI standards
that are developed by INCITS Technical Committee T10 (www.t10.org),
namely SAM2, SAM5 and SPC4. As a completed standard, SAM2 is not a
publicly available document, 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 SAM2 are desired, please
contact the document shepherd, David Black (firstname.lastname@example.org).
(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 text describing
the additions to existing registries and creation of two new registries
is clear, and the -09 version of this document responds to IANA concerns with the -08 version. An expert has been suggested to the Responsible AD for the one new registry that uses the Expert Review process in addition to Standards Action.
(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:
The Internet Small Computer Systems Interface (iSCSI) is a SCSI
transport protocol that maps the SCSI family of protocols onto
TCP/IP. The base iSCSI protocol is based on the SAM-2 (SCSI
Architecture Model - 2) SCSI standard. This document specifies
enhancements to the iSCSI protocol to support certain additional
SCSI features that have been defined in subsequent versions of
the SCSI Architecture Model.
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.
This document was returned to the WG after IESG evaluation primarily
to deal with functionality negotiation concerns (iSCSIProtocolLevel key)
and related IANA Considerations. The WG has resolved those concerns.
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 enhancements are clearly
specified, and are not expected to be significantly disruptive to add to