Subject: [rddp] Suggestions for Consolidation the Specification Documents

From: "Rajiv Das" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 18 Nov 2004 12:12:23 +0530

Hi,
[This is a repost with modifications]
I was just going through all the RDDP Internet Drafts last weekend and I get
a feeling that:
1. The Definitions/Glossary section needs to refer to a master copy so that
variations are not there.
2. The Security section in all the drafts should refer to the Security draft
to reduce redundancy.

It's my feeling that the Architecture document should probably provide the
backbone, something which is not really self-evident now. The diagram below
is intended to show, what I feel can be a reasonable cross-reference
scenario. I realize that the reader must get a complete idea of what each
document intends to convey without too many references, but the current
feeling is like the documents aren't tied together anywhere. I believe a
federal structure is the optimum. I feel that with this consolidation, the
documents will provide an even better picture of RDDP.  

|==============|
|  1.Concerns  |
|==============|
       |
       V
+==============================================+
+              2. ARCHITECTURE                 +
+----------------------------------------------+
+  Definitions                                 +<-------
+----------------------------------------------+       |
+  Overview of RDMA/DDP Operations etc.        +       |
+----------------------------------------------+       |
+  Normative Reference to RDMA Specification   +       |
+----------------------------------------------+       |
+  Normative Reference to DDP Specification    +       |
+----------------------------------------------+       |
+  Normative Reference to Security             +----   |
+----------------------------------------------+    |  |
+  Normative Reference to RDMA Applicablility  +    |  |
+==============================================+    |  |
                                                    |  |
+========================+--------------------------|--|
+ 3/4/5/6. RDMA/DDP Spec |                          |
| RDMA Appl,Prb St       |                          |
|------------------------|                          |
| Norm Ref to Definitions|                          |
|------------------------|                          |
| Norm Ref to Security   |-|                        |
|------------------------| |                        |
| Other Contents         | |                        |
+========================+ |                        |
                           |                        |
                           |                        |
+==============+           |                        |
+  7.Security  +<-----------<-----------------------|
+==============+

I believe I have got my understanding correct and hope I've been brief :-)

----------------------
Thanks,
Rajiv Das
Wipro Technologies

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

---

From: Renato Recio <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 18 Nov 2004 08:18:20 -0600

Rajiv,

It seems to me that each protocol document needs to be able to stand on its
own.  That is, the reader of a protocol document must get within that
document all the normative references that are applicable to that protocol.
It seems to me that we had that to some extent in the protocol RDMAP, DDP,
and MPA documents,  but it was not complete.  It seems to me that using the
text from my earlier post, titled "RDMAP Security Section", would provide a
complete set of normative security references.  Additionally, the RDMAP
specification would reference "[RDMASEC]" Security draft for all the
details and would include a brief informative overview,  as described in
that same post.  However, the normative references do need to be reviewed
by the RDDP WG to make sure they are complete.

We discussed the above plan at IETF 61's RDDP WG session and there seemed
to be general concensus on the approach.

Are we all still OK with that?

Renato J Recio
Chief Architect, eServer I/O
IBM Distinguished Engineer
Member IBM Academy of Technology
Tel 512-838-3685, T/L 678-3685

                      "Rajiv Das"                                                                                                           
                      <[email-masked]        To:       <[email-masked]>                                                                    
                      m>                       cc:                                                                                          
                      Sent by:                 Subject:  [rddp] Suggestions for Consolidation the Specification Documents                   
                      rddp-bounces@ietf                                                                                                     
                      .org                                                                                                                  

                      11/18/2004 12:42                                                                                                      
                      AM                                                                                                                    

Hi,
[This is a repost with modifications]
I was just going through all the RDDP Internet Drafts last weekend and I
get
a feeling that:
1. The Definitions/Glossary section needs to refer to a master copy so that
variations are not there.
2. The Security section in all the drafts should refer to the Security
draft
to reduce redundancy.

|==============|
|  1.Concerns  |
|==============|
       |
       V

----------------------
Thanks,
Rajiv Das
Wipro Technologies

---

From: "Jim Pinkerton" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 22 Nov 2004 13:23:38 -0800

I think this path is reasonable.

Jim

 

________________________________

From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of
Renato Recio
Sent: Thursday, November 18, 2004 6:18 AM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [rddp] Suggestions for Consolidation the Specification
Documents

Rajiv,

It seems to me that each protocol document needs to be able to stand on
its own. That is, the reader of a protocol document must get within that
document all the normative references that are applicable to that
protocol. It seems to me that we had that to some extent in the protocol
RDMAP, DDP, and MPA documents, but it was not complete. It seems to me
that using the text from my earlier post, titled "RDMAP Security
Section", would provide a complete set of normative security references.
Additionally, the RDMAP specification would reference "[RDMASEC]"
Security draft for all the details and would include a brief informative
overview, as described in that same post. However, the normative
references do need to be reviewed by the RDDP WG to make sure they are
complete.

We discussed the above plan at IETF 61's RDDP WG session and there
seemed to be general concensus on the approach.

Renato J Recio

 "Rajiv Das" <[email-masked]>

"Rajiv Das" <[email-masked]>
Sent by: [email-masked] 

11/18/2004 12:42 AM

To: <[email-masked]>
cc: 
Subject: [rddp] Suggestions for Consolidation the Specification
Documents

Hi,
1. The Definitions/Glossary section needs to refer to a master copy so
that

It's my feeling that the Architecture document should probably provide
the
backbone, something which is not really self-evident now. The diagram
below
is intended to show, what I feel can be a reasonable cross-reference
scenario. I realize that the reader must get a complete idea of what
each
document intends to convey without too many references, but the current
feeling is like the documents aren't tied together anywhere. I believe a
federal structure is the optimum. I feel that with this consolidation,
the
documents will provide an even better picture of RDDP. 

|==============|
| 1.Concerns |
|==============|
|
V

I believe I have got my understanding correct and hope I've been brief
:-)

----------------------
Thanks,
Rajiv Das
Wipro Technologies