Subject: [rddp] Publication Request: SCTP draft

From: [email-masked]
Date: Thu, 6 Oct 2005 02:09:18 -0400

Publication has just been requested on the SCTP draft.  The
PROTO process (cf. draft-ietf-proto-wgchair-doc-shepherding-05.txt)
is being used.  Here is the PROTO writeup:

Stream Control Transmission Protocol (SCTP) Remote Direct Memory Access
             (RDMA) Direct Data Placement (DDP) Adaptation
                     draft-ietf-rddp-sctp-02.txt

Requested Publication Status: Proposed Standard
PROTO shepherd: David L. Black (RDDP WG Chair)
------------------------------------------------------------------------

   1.a) Have the chairs personally reviewed this version of the Internet
        Draft (ID), and in particular, do they believe this ID is ready
        to forward to the IESG for publication?

Yes.

   1.b) Has the document had adequate review from both key WG members
        and key non-WG members?

Yes, primarily from WG members.

        Do you have any concerns about the
        depth or breadth of the reviews that have been performed?

The draft has had limited review outside the WG.

   1.c) Do you have concerns that the document needs more review from a
        particular (broader) perspective (e.g., security, operational
        complexity, someone familiar with AAA, etc.)?

No.

   1.d) Do you have any specific concerns/issues with this document that
        you believe the ADs and/or IESG should be aware of?  For
        example, perhaps you are uncomfortable with certain parts of the
        document, or have concerns whether there really is a need for
        it.  In any event, if your issues have been discussed in the WG
        and the WG has indicated it that it still wishes to advance the
        document, detail those concerns in the write-up.

No.

   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?

Most of the WG is primarily interested in rddp over TCP.  There is limited
interest in SCTP.  The portion of the WG that is interested in SCTP
understands and agrees with this document.

   1.f) [... not distributed to the WG ...]

   1.g) Have the chairs verified that the document adheres to all of the
        ID nits? (see http://www.ietf.org/ID-Checklist.html).

The online ID nits checker says everything is ok.

   1.h) Is the document split into normative and informative references?

Yes.  All references are normative.

        Are there normative references to IDs, where the IDs are not
        also ready for advancement or are otherwise in an unclear state?
        (note here that the RFC editor will not publish an RFC with
        normative references to IDs, it will delay publication until all
        such IDs are also ready for publication as RFCs.)

There are four normative references to Internet-Drafts:

o draft-ietf-rddp-ddp, draft-ietf-rddp-rdmap - publication has
	already been requested. 
o draft-ietf-tsvwg-sctpsocket, draft-ietf-tsvwg-addip-sctp -
	I don't know the completion schedule for these tsvwg drafts.

   1.i) For Standards Track and BCP documents, the IESG approval
        announcement includes a write-up section with the following
        sections:

        *    Technical Summary

        *    Working Group Summary

        *    Protocol Quality

   1.j) Please provide such a write-up.  Recent examples can be found in
        the "protocol action" announcements for approved documents.

-- Technical Summary

   This document describes a method to adapt Direct Data Placement (DDP)
   and Remote Direct Memory Access (RDMA) to Stream Control Transmission
   Protocol (SCTP) RFC2960 using a generic description found in
   the RDMA and DDP specifications.  This adaption provides a method
   for two peers to know that each side is performing DDP or RDMA thus
   enabling hardware acceleration if available.

   Some implementations may include this adaptation layer within their
   SCTP implementations to obtain maximum performance but the behavior
   of SCTP will be unaffected.  In order to accomplish this we specify
   the use of the new adaptation layer indication as defined in the
   SCTP ADDIP specification.

-- Working Group Summary

   In contrast to the lengthy discussion of how to adapt rddp to TCP,
   there has been very little controversy over or dissent from this
   draft's approach for adapting rddp to SCTP.

-- Protocol Quality

   The protocol has been reviewed for the rddp WG by David L. Black.
   Randy Stewart, an SCTP expert, is a co-author of this draft.

----------------------------------------------------
David L. Black, Senior Technologist
EMC Corporation, 176 South St., Hopkinton, MA  01748
+1 (508) 293-7953             FAX: +1 (508) 293-7786
[email-masked]        Mobile: +1 (978) 394-7754
----------------------------------------------------

_______________________________________________
rddp mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rddp