Last Modified: 2005-02-09
|Done||Submit the initial protocol encapsulations as working group Internet-Drafts.|
|Done||Submit initial version of framework document as an Internet-Draft.|
|Done||Discuss drafts and issues at the IETF meeting in San Diego.|
|Done||Discuss framework, specification and related drafts (e.g., MIBs, discovery) for the protocol encapsulations at IETF meeting in Minneapolis.|
|Done||Submit final version of iSCSI requirements draft to the IESG for consideration as Informational RFC.|
|Done||Submit initial Internet-Draft of FCIP/iFCP common encapsulation format|
|Done||Begin revision of WG charter in consultation with the Area Directors.|
|Done||Meet at IETF meeting in London to discuss specification and related drafts (e.g., MIBs, discovery) for the protocol encapsulations|
|Done||WG Last Call on IPS security considerations document.|
|Done||WG Last Calls on iSCSI, iSCSI naming/discovery, and iSCSI MIB.|
|Done||WG Last Calls on all WG drafts intended to be published as RFCs, except NAA naming draft|
|Done||Submit remaining non-MIB protocol drafts intended to be published as RFCs to IESG, except NAA naming draft|
|Done||Revise iSCSI boot draft to address security issues and submit to IESG|
|Done||Determine whether to advance NAA naming draft for publication as an RFC in consultation with Technical Committee T10|
|Done||Submit draft on iSCSI ordering considerations for SCSI commands to IESG for consideration as Informational.|
|Feb 04||Submit all remaining MIB drafts to IESG.|
|Mar 04||Review with ADs what (if any) additional work the WG should undertake.|
|Done||Submit NAA naming draft to IESG for publication as an RFC|
|RFC3347||I||Small Computer Systems Interface protocol over the Internet (iSCSI) Requirements and Design Considerations|
|RFC3643||Standard||FC Frame Encapsulation|
|RFC3720||Standard||Internet Small Computer Systems Interface (iSCSI)|
|RFC3721||I||iSCSI Naming and Discovery|
|RFC3722||Standard||String Profile for iSCSI Names|
|RFC3723||Standard||Securing Block Storage Protocols over IP|
|RFC3783||I||SCSI Command Ordering Considerations with iSCSI|
|RFC3821||Standard||Fibre Channel Over TCP/IP (FCIP)|
|RFC3822||Standard||Finding FCIP Entities Using SLPv2|
|RFC3980||Standard||T11 Network Address Authority (NAA) naming format for iSCSI Node Names|
The IP Storage (ips) WG met 0900-1130 on Tuesday,
March 8 at the IETF meetings in Minneapolis, MN.
Letter in [square brackets] is first letter of presentation file name.
Administrivia, agenda bashing, draft status review, etc.: 15 min [A]
David L. Black, EMC (co-chair)
Out of date on web site. Update discussion postponed to end of meeting.
All non-MIB drafts except iSER and DA are RFCs or in RFC Editor's queue.
Elizabeth Rodriguez (co-chair) continues to work with authors on resolving expert review comments on remaining MIBs. FC Management MIB has finally made it through this process, new versions of iSCSI and iSCSI Authorization MIBs coming soon. iSNS MIB has expired from Internet Draft servers, new version expected shortly.
iSER and DA status discussion postponed to end of meeting.
iSER and DA: 45min Mike Ko, IBM [B]
iSER = iSCSI Extensions for RDMA
DA = Datamover Architecture for iSCSI
No open technical issues on DA draft - it's ready for WG Last Call.
The open issues on the iSER draft centered on the new MaxOutstandingUnexpectedPDUs key. The key needs to be specified so that if the sender violates it (sends too many Unexpected PDUs), the receiver is *allowed* to drop the connection, but is *not required* to drop it.
There was a long discussion on when an unsolicited NOP can be considered "retired" and its "Unexpected PDU" credit can be safely reused by the sender. Pat Thaler will send detailed text to specify this to the list.
The draft needs to add advice to implementers on how to deal with potentially tight target limits on unexpected immediate commands - the basic idea is to send non-immediate commands, which aren't subject to the limit, and can cause some preceding immediate commands to be considered "retired".
The details of the specification of the MaxOutstandingUnexpectedPDUs key will be:
Default: "None" (4 letter text string, indicating no limit)
Minimum allowed value: 2
Maximum allowed value: 232 - 1
Section 8 of the iSER contains some considerable changes for which the details matter - WG members are asked to review it carefully.
The X# syntax will not be used with keys added by iSER - they will be specified by the iSER draft when it becomes a Proposed Standard RFC (as a modification of the iSCSI RFC, 3720), hence IANA does not need to register the new iSER keys, and they should not be described as "extension keys".
Schedule discussion on these drafts deferred to after next agenda item.
iSER over InfiniBand: up to 1 hour 30min John Hufferd, IBM [C]
This draft is a proposal to generalize iSER to non-TCP RDMA transports. There are no changes to iSER over TCP.
The draft requests several changes:
1) Generalize terms/wording in iSER to allow non-TCP RDMA transports such as RDDP/SCTP and InfiniBand's RDMA service (with RC). This includes a redefinition of iWARP to encompass SCTP.
2) Generalize wording in iSER to allow a transport to start in native RDMA mode (with Sends for messages) as opposed to TCP starting in Stream mode and switching to the RDDP native RDMA mode.
3) Add some sections on how InfiniBand RDMA works as an example.
4) Extend iSCSI discovery mechanisms to support different transports.
5) Exempt non-IP transports (e.g., InfiniBand) from "MUST implement IPsec" requirements.
There were a number of administrative/procedural matters raised by these requests that were dealt with the WG co-chair (in consultation with the Area Director (Allison Mankin) in some cases:
a) Item 5) was rejected - the IETF will not approve a blanket exemption of usage of a protocol from security requirements. The right approach is to refer to RFC 3723 for the security concerns that apply to iSCSI, and draft text to require that they are addressed as appropriate in different transport environments.
b) The authors of this draft have no plans for a draft on iSCSI over SCTP without iSER. Absent such a draft, iSCSI/iSER/SCTP cannot be specified, and hence should be removed from the proposal. NB: subsequent list discussion has indicated possible interest in writing an iSCSI over SCTP (without iSER) draft, which would make it possible to specify iSCSI/iSER/SCTP.
c) Infiniband-specific issues, such as dealing with possible lack of ZBTO support should be dealt with in the InfiniBand Trade Association, not the IETF.
d) The RDMAP and DDP drafts have passed WG Last Call in the RDDP WG with a definition of "iWARP" that is TCP-only (does not include SCTP). The usage of the term "iWARP" in this (ips) WG must respect that usage in the RDDP WG, and hence generalizing "iWARP" beyond TCP is not appropriate.
At this point, discussion proceeded to the main issue - whether rough consensus exists in the IPS WG to change the iSER draft to accommodate to-be-specified usage of iSER over InfiniBand. Making these changes will likely result in delaying iSER while the details of the expanded support (e.g., protocol selection information in discovery) are worked out.
After the discussion, based on a show of hands in the room, the WG co-chair running the meeting determined that rough consensus to make these changes does not exist, and hence the iSER draft will proceed to WG Last Call without any changes proposed in this draft. During WG Last Call, it will be possible to re-raise these proposed changes as WG Last Call comments for further discussion.
Given this situation, all InfiniBand-specific material for iSER should be submitted as a separate individual submission draft (or multiple individual submission drafts) that make changes to (update) the main iSER draft and the iSCSI discovery mechanism drafts/RFCs as necessary. Whether and what of these proposals to adopt as official IPS WG work items will be considered at the Paris meeting in early August.
Based on this, the planned schedule is to issue a WG Last Call for the DA and iSER drafts in April - authors should prepare versions ready for WG Last Call by April 15 (tax day), and the WG Last Call will follow the conclusion of the imminent WG Last Call in the RDDP WG for the remaining drafts there.
The IPS WG milestones have been accordingly revised to:
Jul 05 Submit iSER (iSCSI Extensions for RDMA) and DA (Datamover Architecture) drafts to IESG
Aug 05 Submit all remaining MIB drafts to IESG
Sep 05 Review with ADs what (if any) additional work the WG should undertake
In other words, the intent is to complete the iSER and DA drafts on the mailing list before the Paris meeting (first week of August). The Paris meeting will be used to resolve any final MIB issues and discuss proposed InfiniBand and SCTP extensions to iSCSI and iSER, with charter revision to follow (Sep) if any of these extensions are added to the IP Storage (ips) WG's program of work.