Remote Direct Memory Access (RDMA) Protocol Extensions
draft-ietf-storm-rdmap-ext-10
Revision differences
Document history
Date | Rev. | By | Action |
---|---|---|---|
2014-06-26
|
10 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to AUTH48-DONE from AUTH48 |
2014-06-23
|
10 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to AUTH48 from RFC-EDITOR |
2014-06-06
|
10 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to RFC-EDITOR from EDIT |
2014-04-23
|
10 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to RFC-Ed-Ack from Waiting on RFC Editor |
2014-04-22
|
10 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to Waiting on RFC Editor from Waiting on Authors |
2014-04-18
|
10 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to Waiting on Authors |
2014-04-18
|
10 | Amy Vezza | IESG state changed to RFC Ed Queue from Approved-announcement sent |
2014-04-18
|
10 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to EDIT |
2014-04-18
|
10 | (System) | Announcement was received by RFC Editor |
2014-04-17
|
10 | Amy Vezza | IESG state changed to Approved-announcement sent from Approved-announcement to be sent |
2014-04-17
|
10 | Amy Vezza | IESG has approved the document |
2014-04-17
|
10 | Amy Vezza | Closed "Approve" ballot |
2014-04-17
|
10 | Amy Vezza | Ballot approval text was generated |
2014-04-17
|
10 | Martin Stiemerling | Ballot writeup was changed |
2014-04-17
|
10 | Martin Stiemerling | updated version addresses the COMMENTs. |
2014-04-17
|
10 | Martin Stiemerling | IESG state changed to Approved-announcement to be sent from Approved-announcement to be sent::AD Followup |
2014-04-16
|
10 | (System) | Sub state has been changed to AD Followup from Revised ID Needed |
2014-04-16
|
10 | Robert Sharp | IANA Review state changed to Version Changed - Review Needed from IANA OK - Actions Needed |
2014-04-16
|
10 | Robert Sharp | New version available: draft-ietf-storm-rdmap-ext-10.txt |
2014-04-15
|
09 | Martin Stiemerling | waiting for the updated draft addressing the COMMENTS. |
2014-04-15
|
09 | Martin Stiemerling | IESG state changed to Approved-announcement to be sent::Revised I-D Needed from Approved-announcement to be sent::Point Raised - writeup needed |
2014-03-27
|
09 | Tero Kivinen | Request for Last Call review by SECDIR Completed: Ready. Reviewer: Adam Montville. |
2014-03-27
|
09 | Cindy Morgan | IESG state changed to Approved-announcement to be sent::Point Raised - writeup needed from IESG Evaluation |
2014-03-27
|
09 | Spencer Dawkins | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Spencer Dawkins |
2014-03-27
|
09 | Benoît Claise | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Benoit Claise |
2014-03-26
|
09 | Joel Jaeggli | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Joel Jaeggli |
2014-03-25
|
09 | Jari Arkko | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Jari Arkko |
2014-03-25
|
09 | Pete Resnick | [Ballot comment] Editorial nits: Please don't use [IB], [RSOCKETS], [OFAVERBS], etc., as nouns. Instead, on first use, say "Infiniband [IB]" and the like, and then … [Ballot comment] Editorial nits: Please don't use [IB], [RSOCKETS], [OFAVERBS], etc., as nouns. Instead, on first use, say "Infiniband [IB]" and the like, and then use the word (not the reference) throughout the rest. Also, an expansion and/or reference for iWARP and RNIC would be helpful in the intro. 4.1 & 4.2: s/MUST be used/are used. What else would an implementation do? 4.1: Figure 2 also defines when the STag, Tagged Offset, and Queue Number fields MUST be provided for the RDMA Messages defined in this specification. I'm confused. Doesn't Figure 2 say that STag and TO are N/A for these messages? That's not a MUST. How about this instead: As shown in Figure 2, STag and Tagged Offset are not applicable for the RDMA Messages defined in this specification. Figure 2 also shows the appropriate Queue Number for each Opcode. 5: An RNIC that supports Atomic Operations as specified in this document MUST implement all Atomic Operation Codes defined in Figure 5. Do you really mean Figure 5? If so, say "both" instead of "all", or even better, try: An RNIC that supports Atomic Operations as specified in this document MUST implement both the FetchAdd operation as specified in section 5.1.1 and CmpSwap operation as specified in section 5.1.2. There are three requirements stated in the last paragraph of this section: MUST use Untagged Buffer model with QN=3, MUST use queue number 3, and MUST use MSN. Whenever I see MUST requirements, I always ask "Why MUST I do that?" If there's a good answer to that question, the explanation (like, "If you don't do this, the implementation will blow up because the other end will be expecting you to handle buffers bigger that you probably thought you needed") should probably be stated if it's not clear why. If the answer is, "Because if you're not doing that, you're not implementing the protocol", then the MUST is silly and should be replaced with "will" or "is". If the answer is, "No reason; we just think you should", then MUST isn't appropriate at all. So, for these three requirements, which answer is correct? (Probably useful to look at other requirements in the document and ask the same questions.) 5.2.1: AOpCode: The "MUST" is redundant. Already stated above. Remote Tagged Offset: It says "MAY start at an arbitrary offset". But I thought above it was stated that it MUST be 64-bit aligned. Did I misunderstand. Add or Swap Mask, Compare Data and Mask: s/MUST be set/is set |
2014-03-25
|
09 | Pete Resnick | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Pete Resnick |
2014-03-23
|
09 | Kathleen Moriarty | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Kathleen Moriarty |
2014-03-22
|
09 | Stephen Farrell | [Ballot comment] - Section 1 and elsewhere: There are a number of acronyms not expanded on 1st use. Doing so would be good, e.g iWARP. … [Ballot comment] - Section 1 and elsewhere: There are a number of acronyms not expanded on 1st use. Doing so would be good, e.g iWARP. It'd also be nice to not use the reference as part of the sentence in at least some cases here, w.g. "...support in [IB]" assumes I can tell what is meant from the two letters IB. (This reader cannot:-) - I wondered if these operations (and RDMA generally) has been examined for potential timing side-channel attacks. If all RDMAP messages were sent via an encrypted channel, how much could I deduce from the timing of the messages and responses? (The pseudo code in section 5 suggested this question.) |
2014-03-22
|
09 | Stephen Farrell | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Stephen Farrell |
2014-03-21
|
09 | Alissa Cooper | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Alissa Cooper |
2014-03-21
|
09 | Barry Leiba | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Barry Leiba |
2014-03-21
|
09 | Brian Haberman | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Brian Haberman |
2014-03-20
|
09 | Jean Mahoney | Request for Telechat review by GENART is assigned to Wassim Haddad |
2014-03-20
|
09 | Jean Mahoney | Request for Telechat review by GENART is assigned to Wassim Haddad |
2014-03-20
|
09 | Alia Atlas | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Alia Atlas |
2014-03-20
|
09 | Adrian Farrel | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Adrian Farrel |
2014-03-13
|
09 | (System) | IANA Review state changed to IANA OK - Actions Needed from Version Changed - Review Needed |
2014-03-13
|
09 | Martin Stiemerling | Ballot has been issued |
2014-03-13
|
09 | Martin Stiemerling | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Martin Stiemerling |
2014-03-13
|
09 | Martin Stiemerling | Created "Approve" ballot |
2014-03-13
|
09 | Martin Stiemerling | Ballot writeup was changed |
2014-03-05
|
09 | Tom Talpey | 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 … 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. |
2014-03-03
|
09 | Martin Stiemerling | Placed on agenda for telechat - 2014-03-27 |
2014-03-03
|
09 | Martin Stiemerling | IESG state changed to IESG Evaluation from Waiting for AD Go-Ahead |
2014-03-03
|
09 | Martin Stiemerling | IESG state changed to Waiting for AD Go-Ahead from Waiting for Writeup::AD Followup |
2014-03-03
|
09 | (System) | Sub state has been changed to AD Followup from Revised ID Needed |
2014-03-03
|
09 | Robert Sharp | IANA Review state changed to Version Changed - Review Needed from IANA - Not OK |
2014-03-03
|
09 | Robert Sharp | New version available: draft-ietf-storm-rdmap-ext-09.txt |
2014-03-03
|
08 | Martin Stiemerling | Waiting for updated draft with updated text in the IANA section. |
2014-03-03
|
08 | Martin Stiemerling | IESG state changed to Waiting for Writeup::Revised I-D Needed from Waiting for Writeup |
2014-02-21
|
08 | Gunter Van de Velde | Request for Last Call review by OPSDIR Completed: Has Nits. Reviewer: Susan Hares. |
2014-02-19
|
08 | (System) | IESG state changed to Waiting for Writeup from In Last Call |
2014-02-17
|
08 | (System) | IANA Review state changed to IANA - Not OK from IANA - Review Needed |
2014-02-17
|
08 | Pearl Liang | IESG/Authors/WG Chairs: IANA has reviewed draft-ietf-storm-rdmap-ext-08. Authors should review the comments and/or questions below. Please report any inaccuracies and respond to any questions as soon … IESG/Authors/WG Chairs: IANA has reviewed draft-ietf-storm-rdmap-ext-08. Authors should review the comments and/or questions below. Please report any inaccuracies and respond to any questions as soon as possible. IANA has questions for one of the IANA actions for this document. We received the following comments/questions from the IANA's reviewer: IANA understands that, upon approval of this document, there are three actions which IANA must complete. First, in the RDMAP Message Operation Codes subregistry of the RDDP Registry located at: http://www.iana.org/assignments/rddp/ The following four operation codes are to be added as follows: RDMAP Message Operation Code: 0x8 Message Type: Immediate Data Reference: [ RFC-to-be ] RDMAP Message Operation Code: 0x9 Message Type: Immediate Data with Solicited Event Reference: [ RFC-to-be ] RDMAP Message Operation Code: 0xA Message Type: Atomic Request Reference: [ RFC-to-be ] RDMAP Message Operation Code: 0xB Message Type: Atomic Response Reference: [ RFC-to-be ] Second, a new registry is to be created called the RDMAP Message Atomic Operation Subcodes and located in the RDDP Registry located at: http://www.iana.org/assignments/rddp/ Subcodes are 4-bit values. Fields to be recorded in the new registry are: RDMAP Message Atomic Operation Subcode, Atomic Operation, RFC Reference. The registry is to be maintained through Standards Action as defined by RFC 5226. All other values are Unassigned and available to IANA for assignment. There are two initial values for the new registry as follows: RDMAP Message Atomic Operation Subcode: 0x0 Atomic Operation: FetchAdd Reference: [ RFC-to-be ] RDMAP Message Atomic Operation Subcode: 0x2 Atomic Operation: CmpSwap Reference: [ RFC-to-be ] Third, a new registry is to be created called the RDMAP Queue Numbers and also located in the RDDP Registry located at: http://www.iana.org/assignments/rddp/ Subcodes are 32-bit values. Fields to be recorded in the new registry are: RDMAP DDP Untagged Queue Numbers, Atomic Operation, RFC Reference. The registry is to be maintained through Standards Action as defined by RFC 5226. All other values are Unassigned and available to IANA for assignment. There are four initial values for the new registry as follows: 0x00000000, Queue 0 (Send operation Variants), [RFC5040] 0x00000001, Queue 1 (RDMA Read Request operations), [RFC5040] 0x00000002, Queue 2 (Terminate operations), [RFC5040] 0x00000003, Queue 3 (Atomic Response operations), [RFCXXXX] QUESTIONS: 1. It appears that you define three fields: RDMAP DDP Untagged Queue Numbers, Atomic Operation, RFC Reference. But, according to the "Initial registry contents", there are four types/fields: 0x00000000, Queue 0 (Send operation Variants), [RFC5040]. What is the field name for 0x00000000? What is the field name for Queue #? What is the field name for 'Send operation Variants'? 2. Should the value 2^32-1 be made available for assigment? IANA understands that these three actions are the only ones required to be completed upon approval of this document. Note: The actions requested in this document will not be completed until the document has been approved for publication as an RFC. This message is only to confirm what actions will be performed. |
2014-02-17
|
08 | David Black | Tag Other - see Comment Log cleared. |
2014-02-17
|
08 | David Black | IETF WG state changed to Submitted to IESG for Publication from WG Document |
2014-02-08
|
08 | Gunter Van de Velde | Request for Last Call review by OPSDIR is assigned to Susan Hares |
2014-02-08
|
08 | Gunter Van de Velde | Request for Last Call review by OPSDIR is assigned to Susan Hares |
2014-02-07
|
08 | Jean Mahoney | Request for Last Call review by GENART is assigned to Wassim Haddad |
2014-02-07
|
08 | Jean Mahoney | Request for Last Call review by GENART is assigned to Wassim Haddad |
2014-02-06
|
08 | Tero Kivinen | Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Adam Montville |
2014-02-06
|
08 | Tero Kivinen | Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Adam Montville |
2014-02-05
|
08 | Amy Vezza | IANA Review state changed to IANA - Review Needed |
2014-02-05
|
08 | Amy Vezza | The following Last Call announcement was sent out: From: The IESG To: IETF-Announce CC: Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org Sender: Subject: Last Call: (RDMA Protocol Extensions) to Proposed … The following Last Call announcement was sent out: From: The IESG To: IETF-Announce CC: Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org Sender: Subject: Last Call: (RDMA Protocol Extensions) to Proposed Standard The IESG has received a request from the STORage Maintenance WG (storm) to consider the following document: - 'RDMA Protocol Extensions' as Proposed Standard The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits final comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the ietf@ietf.org mailing lists by 2014-02-19. Exceptionally, comments may be sent to iesg@ietf.org instead. In either case, please retain the beginning of the Subject line to allow automated sorting. Abstract 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. The file can be obtained via http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-storm-rdmap-ext/ IESG discussion can be tracked via http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-storm-rdmap-ext/ballot/ No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D. |
2014-02-05
|
08 | Amy Vezza | IESG state changed to In Last Call from Last Call Requested |
2014-02-05
|
08 | Martin Stiemerling | Last call was requested |
2014-02-05
|
08 | Martin Stiemerling | Ballot approval text was generated |
2014-02-05
|
08 | Martin Stiemerling | Ballot writeup was generated |
2014-02-05
|
08 | Martin Stiemerling | IESG state changed to Last Call Requested from AD Evaluation |
2014-02-05
|
08 | Martin Stiemerling | Last call announcement was generated |
2014-01-16
|
08 | Martin Stiemerling | State changed to AD Evaluation from Publication Requested |
2014-01-14
|
08 | Amy Vezza | State changed to Publication Requested from I-D Exists (IESG: Dead) |
2014-01-14
|
08 | Amy Vezza | 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 … 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 updates and extends RFC5040, but 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. |
2014-01-14
|
08 | Amy Vezza | Document shepherd changed to Tom Talpey |
2013-10-18
|
08 | Robert Sharp | New version available: draft-ietf-storm-rdmap-ext-08.txt |
2013-09-16
|
07 | Robert Sharp | New version available: draft-ietf-storm-rdmap-ext-07.txt |
2013-09-11
|
06 | Robert Sharp | New version available: draft-ietf-storm-rdmap-ext-06.txt |
2013-09-05
|
05 | Robert Sharp | New version available: draft-ietf-storm-rdmap-ext-05.txt |
2013-07-13
|
04 | (System) | Document has expired |
2013-07-13
|
04 | (System) | State changed to Dead from AD is watching |
2013-01-09
|
04 | Hemal Shah | New version available: draft-ietf-storm-rdmap-ext-04.txt |
2012-12-18
|
03 | Martin Stiemerling | Intended Status changed to Proposed Standard |
2012-12-18
|
03 | Martin Stiemerling | IESG process started in state AD is watching |
2012-07-10
|
03 | Hemal Shah | New version available: draft-ietf-storm-rdmap-ext-03.txt |
2012-01-09
|
02 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-storm-rdmap-ext-02.txt |
2011-12-15
|
02 | David Black | IETF state changed to WG Document from Adopted by a WG |
2011-12-15
|
02 | David Black | Revised I-D needed to add IANA considerations. |
2011-12-15
|
02 | David Black | Annotation tag Other - see Comment Log set. |
2011-09-09
|
02 | David Black | Based on charter update. |
2011-09-09
|
02 | David Black | IETF state changed to Adopted by a WG from Call For Adoption By WG Issued |
2011-07-11
|
01 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-storm-rdmap-ext-01.txt |
2011-07-01
|
02 | David Black | Document is a candidate for adoption by storm WG. Will be discussed in Quebec. |
2011-07-01
|
02 | David Black | IETF state changed to Call For Adoption By WG Issued from WG Document |
2011-03-08
|
00 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-storm-rdmap-ext-00.txt |