Last Modified: 2004-09-28
|Done||Submit Internet-Draft including problem statement and architecture|
|Done||Submit Initial draft of Remote Direct Data Placement protocol (RDDP)|
|Done||Submit Initial draft of RDMA control protocol, to be named.|
|Done||Initial draft mapping the RDDP core and control onto SCTP including A/S|
|Done||Submit problem statement and architecture drafts to IESG for consideration as informational publications|
|Done||Initial draft of security considerations for RDDP|
|Done||Initial draft of informational mapping of the RDDP core and control onto TCP|
|Done||Initial draft of applicability statement covering both the SCTP and TCP mappings|
|Mar 04||Submit RDMA control protocol (named TBD) to IESG for consideration as a Proposed Standard|
|Mar 04||Submit Remote Data Placement Protocol (RDDP) to IESG for consideration as a Proposed Standard|
|Mar 04||Submit RDDP security considerations draft to IESG|
|Sep 04||Submit mapping of the RDDP core and RDMA control protocols onto SCTP to IESG for consideration as proposed standard|
|Sep 04||Submit mapping of the RDDP core and RDMA control protocols onto TCP for consideration as an informational publication|
|Sep 04||Submit applicability statement for RDDP core and RDMA control protocols over both SCTP and TCP for consideration as an informational publication|
|Oct 04||Consult Area Directors about any additional work the WG should undertake|
RDDP Minutes - 61st IETF Meeting DRAFT
Thanks to Hemal V. Shah for taking the minutes
Letters in [square brackets] are first letter in presentation file name.
Note that "?" at second indent position is a bullet, it does not introduce a question.
* Agenda bashing
* Status of drafts (from all authors) [A]
o Problem statement has been in RFC editor queue.
o Architecture document very close to being in RFC editor queue.
o RDMAP/DDP drafts are not ready for WG last call at this point. Security sections need to be checked for MUST implement IPsec (RFC 3723). Only open issues are security requirements.
o Applicability draft (when to use SCTP versus TCP) in process.
o Once we have security requirements in RDMAP/DDP drafts, then security, DDP, and RDMAP drafts will go to the first round of WG Last Call.
o Second batch of last calls will be MPA, SCTP, and Applicability.
* Security draft (Presenter: Jim Pinkerton) [B]
o Major changes
? Quickly iterated -03, -04, and -05 in one month.
? Changed the draft to be standards track
? Resolved several TBDs: channel binding, connection hijacking, finished summary tables of attacks in appendix
? New or substantially revised appendices: appendix A is normative, appendices B & C are informative.
o Major new normative statements
? Most RECOMMENDED statements were changed to MUST/MAY.
? IPsec is MUST implement and OPTIONAL to use
? Resource manager
* MUST be used if a scarce resource
* MUST NOT assume shared partial mutual trust
o Planned changes to -06 draft
? Resolve some more TBDs.
? Need review.
* RDMAP Security issues (Presenter: Renato Recio) [C]
o RDMAP and DDP drafts need to have security requirements.
? List out informative text
? Summary of RDMAP specific security requirements
? Security services for RDMAP
o Security Model and general assumptions
? Mainly list the attacks, attack types, and resources. Details are in RDMA security draft.
o RDMAP specific security requirements
? Privileged resource manager requirements
o There are some requirements that might be added to RDMAP and RDMA security drafts
o Need to revise MUST requirement on firmware load in RDMA security draft.
o List of normative requirements will be sent to the reflector.
o Email discussion on the reflector on the normative text.
o DDP draft will address the requirements on the list through the discussions and then it will be added to the draft.
* MPA (Presenter: Paul Culley) [D]
? Need to add text from the security draft
? Marker pointer clarification
? Minor clarification of meaning of "connection establishment"
? Where do the non-zero markers of the FPDU point to?
* Or Zero-marker
? Marker should point to ULPDU_length instead of start of FPDU-Hdr [sense of room]
o IPsec requirement is it needed in MPA?
? Need to cross-reference requirement from DDP.
* Safest thing to do is have MPA list IPsec as MUST implement and optional to use. Derived from DDP requirement as DDP is the only protocol that can be above MPA. [no objection]
* SCTP mapping (Presenter: Caitlin Bestler) [E]
o Main changes
? Updated to new boilerplate (e.g., IPR)
? SCTP/MPA differences noted
* Size of private data 512 B for SCTP mapping
* MPA requires first FPDU come from initiating side
* In MPA spec, we need specify that MPA MUST allow private data up to 512B.
? Session control changed to align with MPA
* Only one exchange per side. Eliminated negotiate message.
* Added explicit reject message.
? Dealt with small PDUs
* iWARP interoperability w/RDMAC versions + APIs (Presenter: John Carrier) [F]
o Interoperability on the wire
? RDMAC/IETF RDMAP/DDP protocols have same semantics and wire protocol format, but they both use different versions.
? No standard way for ULPs to exchange version information that could be used to configure the RNICs
? If IETF implementation decides to turn markers off, then IETF RNIC won't interoperate with RDMAC RNIC.
o Interoperability above RDDP
? Discussion on standardizing private data format - Not appropriate to specify ULP data format [sense of room]
? Add a requirement on that version information should be available to ULP [sense of room]
? No consensus on the private data format.
* Worry around breaking the existing implementations.
? Within a week, the text on the interoperability will be generated and sent to list. It'll be headed for appendices of the MPA, DDP, and RDMAP protocol drafts. [no objection]
* Next steps
o Revise security draft.
o Add appropriate security requirements in DDP & RDMAP.
* Meeting adjourned @ 9:30pm on November 8, 2004.