Subject: [rddp] Publication Request: MPA

From: [email-masked]
Date: Thu, 6 Oct 2005 02:09:33 -0400

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

PROTO writeup: 
              Marker PDU Aligned Framing for TCP Specification 
                     draft-ietf-rddp-mpa-03.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 IETF 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.

This draft contains a significant quantity of TCP-specific behavioral
details.  The WG has settled on an approach that does not involve
making changes to TCP.  Expert Review from a TCP expert would be a
good idea to make sure that nothing has been overlooked that could
result in an unintended TCP change or unwarranted restriction.

   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?

The WG as a whole 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 ID nits online checker says everything is fine.

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

Yes.

        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.)

The only normative reference to an Internet-Draft is:
o draft-ietf-rddp-security - publication has already been requested.

   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

   MPA (Marker Protocol data unit Aligned framing) is designed to work
   as an "adaptation layer" between TCP and the Direct Data Placement
   [DDP] protocol, preserving the reliable, in-order delivery of TCP,
   while adding the preservation of higher-level protocol record
   boundaries that DDP requires. MPA is fully compliant with applicable
   TCP RFCs and can be utilized with existing TCP implementations. MPA
   also supports integrated implementations that combine TCP, MPA and
   DDP to reduce buffering requirements in the implementation and
   improve performance at the system level.

-- Working Group Summary

   The degree to which TCP should be changed for MPA (and hence the
   rddp protocol stack) has been a source of controversy.  The WG has
   adopted an approach that requires no TCP modifications, and there is
   now strong WG consensus for that approach.

-- Protocol Quality

   The protocol has been reviewed for the rddp WG by David L. Black.
   There are multiple implementations of the MPA protocol, including
   the Request and Reply frames for connection setup added by the WG
   at the direction of the Transport Area.

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