Subject: [Tsvwg] Drafts coming from RDMA Consortium

From: [email-masked]
Date: Mon, 16 Sep 2002 20:46:14 -0400

At the RDDP WG meeting in Yokohama, I said that I
would be working with the RDMA Consortium to get their
work submitted as Internet-Drafts.  That has now come
to pass; the following drafts from the RDMA Consortium
should be appearing on the Internet-Drafts servers in
the near future:

draft-culley-iwarp-mpa-00.txt (MPA framing for TCP)
draft-recio-iwarp-rdmap-00.txt (Remote Direct Memory Access Protocol)
draft-shah-iwarp-ddp-00.txt (Direct Data Placement)

The observant reader will notice that these drafts have
the "wrong" IPR boilerplate on them (NOT in accordance
with Section 10 of RFC 2026, IETF may only publish as an
Internet-Draft).  Subsequent draft versions that have the
"right" boilerplate (subject to all provisions of Section 10
of RFC 2026) will be submitted prior to the Atlanta cutoff
(Nov. 4), and hopefully quite a bit earlier than the cutoff.

The reason for the "wrong" boilerplate on the current versions
is that the legal arrangements under which the drafts were written
includes an <expletive deleted> 30 day legal clock that has
to be run down before the "right" boilerplate can be applied
- it seemed more useful to expose the drafts to the IETF
community for technical discussion now rather than wait 30 days.
Anyone who *really* wants more information on the legal
<expletive deleted>, should send me email directly rather
than posting to one of the WG mailing lists.

I'm reasonably certain that versions of these drafts with the
"right" boilerplate will be submitted before the Atlanta cutoff
... because drafts with the "wrong" boilerplate will not be
on any WG agenda in Atlanta, and the draft authors very much
want the IETF to consider their drafts.  Besides, if these
drafts don't come in, the result will seriously annoy both
yours truly (rddp WG chair) and the ADs ... I'd ask folks to
consider these drafts seriously even though they have the
"wrong" boilerplate for timing reasons.

A few other notes:
- The MPA draft is for the tsvwg WG.  I believe it's intended
	to supersede the TCP ULP framing draft, but any handling
	of this draft is up to the tsvwg chairs (ADs).
- The DDP and RDMAP drafts are for the RDDP WG.  As I said in
	Yokohama, the proverbial "fix" is not "in" for these drafts.
	They're currently individual submissions, and the rddp WG will
	decide what to adopt as official WG drafts in Atlanta (not
	before).  Between now and then, anyone who wants to
	write a draft or draft on alternate approaches for the
	rddp WG to consider is welcome to do so.
- There are some dependencies in the DDP and RDMAP drafts on
	the underlying transport being an MPA (framing) enhanced TCP.
	The rddp WG will be responsible for ensuring that any
	mechanisms it specifies (e.g., based on the above DDP
	and RDMAP drafts) will work over SCTP and unmodified TCP
	(see the rddp WG charter).  The dependencies are believed
	to be fairly easy to remove, but the proverbial "devil"
	is in the details.

Thanks,
--David

---------------------------------------------------
David L. Black, Senior Technologist
EMC Corporation, 42 South St., Hopkinton, MA  01748
+1 (508) 249-6449            FAX: +1 (508) 497-8018
[email-masked]       Mobile: +1 (978) 394-7754
---------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
tsvwg mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tsvwg