Shepherd writeup
rfc7145-15

PROTO writeup:

                  iSCSI Extensions for RDMA Specification
                       draft-ietf-storm-iser-12.txt

PROTO shepherd: David L. Black (STORM WG Co-Chair)
------------------------------------------------------------------------

(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 RFC is requested because this draft updates and
   replaces RFC 5046, a Proposed Standard RFC.  Proposed Standard is
   indicated as the intended status is in the title page header.

(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

   iSCSI Extensions for RDMA provides the RDMA data transfer capability
   to iSCSI by layering iSCSI on top of an RDMA-Capable Protocol.  An
   RDMA-Capable Protocol provides RDMA Read and Write services, which
   enable data to be transferred directly into SCSI I/O Buffers without
   intermediate data copies.  This document describes the extensions to
   the iSCSI protocol to support RDMA services as provided by an RDMA-
   Capable Protocol.

Working Group Summary

   This document is a minor update to RFC 5046, primarily to reflect
   what has actually been done in implementations.  WG Last Call turned
   up several issues around relaxing RFC 5046's requirements based on what
   implementations have done.  These issues involved use of Send message
   types that have side effects (implementations often do not use these)
   and the consequeces of delayed resource allocation (implementations
   have run into a race condition that can terminate an iSER connection
   if measures to avoid it are not taken).  All of these issues have
   been resolved in the current version of this document, although
   the race condition avoidance is not perfect due to the need to
   cope wiht current "running code" in implementations.

Document Quality

   There are multiple implementations of the iSER protocol;
   the primary purpose of this document is to reflect implementation
   experience so that the iSER protocol specification matches the
   "running code".  Hemal Shah's review of the document resulted in
   some important changes in the text describing use of versions of
   the Send message.  Alexander Neshinsky reported the resource
   allocation problem seen in implmenetations and provided valuable
   help in working out an approach that encompasses boht the "right
   thing" to do going forward and necessary measures to cope with
   current "running code" in implementations.

Personnel

   Document Shepherd: David Black (storm WG co-chair)
   Responsible Area Director: Martin Stiemerling (Transport)

(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 read the document in its entirety for WG Last
  Call and compared it to RFC 5046 at that timme.  The Document Shepherd
  has reviewed all of the subsequent changes.  Numerous changes have
  been made to this document in  response to the Document Shepherd's
  comments at WG Last Call and subsequently.  The Document Shepherd
  believes that this document is now ready for RFC publication.

(4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or
breadth of the reviews that have been performed?  

   No.

(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? 

   No. 

(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.

   None.

(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.

(8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document?

   No.

(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 storm (STORage Maintenance) WG is a maintenance WG that works on
   a number of storage technologies, and hence not every participant is
   interested in every technology.  The members of the WG who are
   interested in iSER understand and agree with this document.

(10) Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme 
discontent?

   No.

(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.

   No nits - idnits 2.12.13 issues three warnings that do not reflect
   actual problems with the draft.

(12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review
criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.

   Not applicable.

(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?

   No.

(15) Are there downward normative references references (see RFC 3967)?

   No.

(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.

   This document obsoletes RFC 5046; that is listed in the title page header
   and stated in the Abstract.  The Introduction section starts on p.15, and
   it does not seem necessary to repeat the obsolescence statement that far
   into the document.

(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. 

   The IANA considerations section adds three keys to the iSCSI
   Login/Text Keys" registry of "iSCSI Parameters", and requests reference
   updates to other iSER keys that will be confirmed by IANA.  The document
   shepherd has checked the IANA Considerations section and believes it
   to be correct and sufficient.

(17-continued) 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).

   Not applicable.

(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.

   Not applicable.

(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.
Back