Subject: [tsv-area] Application protocol for distributed storage

From: Wesley Leggette <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 14 Jan 2010 22:07:44 -0600

Hello,

I sent this out to the apps discuss list, but I thought somebody here might
also be able to help me.

My company is interested in submitting an I-D for our network distributed
storage protocol. At this point, we're thinking of dividing our efforts into
multiple parts:

* An on-the-wire application protocol from client to storage servers.
* A security protocol.
* A data processing method and storage format for client data stored on
storage servers.

I'm not entirely clear which working group(s) I should attempt to work with.
Any pointers would be helpful.

Our application and products as a whole get into the "cloud storage" area,
but we would like to focus on a smaller subset (just the network protocol)
to begin with. However, if there are any working groups within IETF that
focus on remote or distributed storage that would be interesting to know as
well.

Thanks,

Wesley Leggette
Cleversafe, Inc.

---

From: Lars Eggert <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 15 Jan 2010 10:14:06 +0200

Hi, Wesley,

> focus on remote or distributed storage that would be interesting to know as

you probably want to take a look at the work of the NFSv4 working group (http://tools.ietf.org/wg/nfsv4/charters), since NFS is the IETF's current major protocol in this space.

The STORM working group (http://tools.ietf.org/wg/storm/charters) is currently chartered to do maintenance on the lower part of the IETF storage stack, namely, the iSCSI and RDMA protocols originally done in the now-concluded IPS and RDDP working groups.

(I've CC'ed both NFSv4 and STORM on this reply.)

Lars

---

From: Wesley Leggette <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 15 Jan 2010 10:01:57 -0600

> 
> you probably want to take a look at the work of the NFSv4 working group
> (http://tools.ietf.org/wg/nfsv4/charters), since NFS is the IETF's current
> major protocol in this space.
> 
> The STORM working group (http://tools.ietf.org/wg/storm/charters) is currently
> chartered to do maintenance on the lower part of the IETF storage stack,
> namely, the iSCSI and RDMA protocols originally done in the now-concluded IPS
> and RDDP working groups.
> 

Thanks. I'll look into this.

However, I should have been clear that we already have a protocol for our
product, and at this point we'd just like to publish it for review. I was
looking for a working group or people who would be interested in that.

Wesley Leggette
Cleversafe, Inc.

---

From: Joe Touch <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 15 Jan 2010 08:17:36 -0800

Wesley,

It seems to me that your first review just came in ;-). I.e., it would
be useful to indicate the extent to which your current docs address how
existing protocols were not sufficient.

If they don't yet do this, then that would appear to be a useful next step.

Beyond that, what is the purpose of this review? I would expect that
useful aspects of your protocol could be incorporated into standards
track protocols under development, or that a new protocol
(informational, experimental, or standards track) could be established
based on your protocol. Can you address what your goals are?

Joe

---

From: Wesley Leggette <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 15 Jan 2010 10:36:12 -0600

Joe,

Thank you ;)

I should start by saying that at this point we have a fully implemented and
working product, so our overall goal is to sufficiently describe it to allow
third-party implementations.

This being said, our current installation base allows for some flexibility
so it is my hope that by submitting a protocol specification for review we
can receive constructive criticism which will make it easier and more
practical for others to implement our protocol.

My initial plan was to finish an initial draft of our transport and security
protocols. This email was sent to determine if and where an appropriate
working group exists which would be interested in reviewing such a thing.

However, I see your point and so I suppose the best approach would be to
attempt, when I submit something, to explain clearly the design goals and
requirements that led us to go the route we did?

When we are ready to submit something (it would be a submission which
documents what we have currently implemented) is there a working group that
would be appropriate, or should we just submit an I-D directly?

Wesley Leggette
Cleversafe, Inc.

---

From: Joe Touch <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 15 Jan 2010 08:45:13 -0800

Hi, Wesley,

> third-party implementations.

It's useful to explain whether these are licensed parties, and the
general terms of the license you expect. I.e., open, free to those who
don't challenge your patents, or for-fee.

> practical for others to implement our protocol.

It's also useful to consider the difference between asking the IETF to
review documentation for a protocol you continue to own, vs. including
modification and/or unification with other protocols.

> working group exists which would be interested in reviewing such a thing.

Lars suggested there might be more than one, which is not uncommon.

> requirements that led us to go the route we did?

Yes, that's always useful IMO.

> would be appropriate, or should we just submit an I-D directly?

It's always easiest to submit an individual I-D first, then see where to
place it, AFAICT.

Joe

---

From: Wesley Leggette <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 15 Jan 2010 10:51:39 -0600

> It's always easiest to submit an individual I-D first, then see where to

Then we will do that for now, taking into account your other suggestions.

Wesley Leggette

---

From: Wesley Leggette <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 15 Jan 2010 19:16:27 -0600

On 1/15/10 16:12, "Nicolas Williams" <[email-masked]> wrote:

> On Fri, Jan 15, 2010 at 10:51:39AM -0600, Wesley Leggette wrote:
> The process roughly goes like this:
> 
>  - Submit some individual submission Internet-Drafts (e.g.,
>    draft-leggette-my-distributed-storage-protocol-00).
> 
>  - Request a BoF meeting at the next IETF meeting.

I've noticed that IETF 77 will be held in California in March. We'd be
interested in requesting a meeting for that, but since the proposal request
deadline is the 25th, it seems unlikely that we can have a I-D submitted by
then. Can one request a BOF meeting without a prior submission (assuming we
would finish our submission before March)?

Wesley Leggette
Cleversafe, Inc.

---

From: Joe Touch <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 15 Jan 2010 22:12:27 -0800

Hi, all,

>    draft-leggette-my-distributed-storage-protocol-00).

- - figure out whether that doc should be handled in an existing WG
	- this can happen by review, or by making a brief presentation
	on one of the area meetings at the next IETF

BoFs can be useful if the result suggests significant effort is needed
(new WG or substantial recharter of existing WG), but this intermediate
step is useful in getting feedback.

Joe

>    The goal of the BoF should be to determine IETF interest in your
>    proposals.  Possible outcomes of a BoF include:
> 
>     - a second BoF is needed;
> 
>     - there's no interest in chartering a WG or re-chartering an
>       existing one; you will be able to try again once more, and you
>       will still be able to proceed with the individual submission
>       track;
> 
>       (There's the possibility in this case that the IESG will
>       ultimately oppose standards-track publication, in which case
>       you'll end up with informational or experimental RFCs, or perhaps
>       you'd abandon the effort.)
> 
>     - a WG will be chartered to host the work;
>     
>     - an existing WG will be re-chartered to host the work.
> 
> It will help to have an introductory I-D.  Do disclose mind IPR
> dislosure rules.  Do familiarize yourself with the IETF standards
> process.
> 
> Nico

---

From: Joe Touch <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 15 Jan 2010 22:14:20 -0800

> would finish our submission before March)?

As per my other post, I would encourage you to contact a WG chair in one
of the existing WGs or their parent area meetings to make a brief (5-10
minute) presentation at the next IETF. It would be useful to have the
I-D submitted before the deadline, but that would give you more time (to
the I-D deadline, not the BOF submission deadline).

Joe

---

From: Nicolas Williams <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 15 Jan 2010 16:12:15 -0600

Nico
--

---

From: Nicolas Williams <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 17 Jan 2010 17:16:26 -0600

> 	on one of the area meetings at the next IETF

Indeed.  Read all the WG charters and see which comes closest to being a
good home for this work.  If your work is really something new then
chances are good no existing WG's charter will cover it.

Do keep in mind that the IETF is a volunteer organization.  There are no
paid members, jsut volunteers who participate.  Many participants' IETF
activities are funded by their employers or businesses; many are not
funded.  This has an impact on interest in the face of restrictive IPR
[read: patent] licensing: the more restrictive/costly the licensing
terms, the less interest you'll find.

Cheers,

Nico
--