Subject: [rddp] Publication Request: Applicability

From: [email-masked]
Date: Tue, 11 Oct 2005 16:33:30 -0400

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

Applicability of Remote Direct Memory Access Protocol (RDMA) and Direct
                          Data Placement (DDP)
                  draft-ietf-rddp-applicability-04.txt

Requested Publication Status: Informational
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.  There are a few editing issues that the RFC Editor can address.

   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 interested in rddp over TCP.  There is limited interest
in SCTP, or in a draft like this that includes guidance on choosing
between TCP and SCTP.  The portion of the WG that is interested in SCTP
understands and agrees with this document.

   1.f) [... Not sent 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).

Yes.

   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-rdmap, draft-ietf-rddp-ddp - publication has already
	been requested.
o draft-ietf-rddp-mpa, draft-ietf-rddp-sctp - publication has already
	been requested.

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

N/A - this is an Informational document.

----------------------------------------------------
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