Re: [rddp] Storage Maintenance (storm) BOF reminder & requests
While I am unfortunately unable to attend the BOF
I am interested in contributing to
- RDDP MPA: Small startup update for MPI application
preferably through your Option (C), the "virtual"
The interoperability of MPA-based RDMA connection
is still a concern - for MPI, NFS/RDMA and other apps.
Because MPA has the (theoretically well-known) requirement
the first FPDU be sent from the RDMA initiator side,
InfiniBand has no such requirement, RDMA application
tend to be caught by surprise when an application
this requirement works on InfiniBand but doesn't on
The so-called "peer-to-peer connection management"
discussed in various flavours on the Linux OpenFabrics
reflector for making RDMA connection management more
(among transports) and easier to use should be studied
The solution should be flexible enough to allow an
application to avoid unnecessary additional round-trip
In addition, MPA's "delayed startup sequence"
transition to RDMA mode or socket conversion) may
clarification. For instance, the negotiation of connection
parameters such as IRD and ORD should be clarified
where Private Data is not used in MPA Request/Reply.
(IRD adjustment in RTS state is not mandatory according
to the RDMAC Verbs, p. 74).
Besides contributing to draft text, I am interested
early testing of the MPA startup update through a
Fredy Neeser, Research Staff Member
IBM Zurich Research Laboratory
CH-8803 Rueschlikon, Switzerland
Phone : +41 (0)44 724 8487
||[rddp] Storage Maintenance (storm) BOF
reminder & requests
This is a reminder that the Storage Maintenance BOF
be held in about 2 weeks at the IETF meetings in San Francisco.
Please plan to attend if you're interested:
THURSDAY, March 26, 2009
Storage Maintenance BOF
The BOF description is at:
The initial agenda is here:
I'm going to go upload that initial agenda as the BOF agenda,
and it can be bashed at the meeting.
The primary purpose of this BOF is to answer two questions:
(1) What storage maintenance work (IP Storage, Remote Direct
Data Placement) should be done?
(2) Should an IETF Working Group be formed to undertake that
Everyone gets to weigh in on these decisions, even those who
can't attend the BOF meeting. Anyone who thinks that there is
work that should be done, and who cannot come to the BOF meeting
should say so on the IPS or RDDP mailing lists (and it'd be a
good idea for those who can come to do this). As part of the
email, please indicate how you're interested in helping (author
or co-author of specific drafts, promise to review and comment
on specific drafts).
Here's a summary of the initial draft list of work items:
- iSCSI: Combine RFCs into one document, removing unused features.
- iSCSI: Interoperability report on what has been implemented and
interoperates in support of Draft Standard status for iSCSI.
- iSCSI: Add backwards-compatible features to support SAM-4.
- iFCP: The Address Translation mode of iFCP needs to be deprecated.
- RDDP MPA: Small startup update for MPI application support.
- iSER: A few minor updates based on InfiniBand experience.
Additional work (e.g., updated/improved iSNS for iSCSI, MIB changes,
updated ipsec security profile [i.e., IKEv2-based]) is possible if
There are (at least) four possible outcomes:
(A) None of this work needs to be done.
(B) There are some small work items that make sense. Individual
drafts with a draft shepherd (i.e., David Black) will
(C) A working group is needed to undertake more complex work
items and reach consensus on design issues. The WG can
be "virtual" and operate mostly via the mailing list
until/unless controversial/contentious issues arise.
(D) There is a lot of complex work that is needed, and a WG
that will plan to meet at every IETF meeting should be
Please note that the IETF "rough consensus" process requires
working group in practice to be effective. This makes outcome
(C) look attractive to me, as:
- I'm coming under increasing pressure to limit travel, and
the next two IETF meetings after San Francisco are not
in the US.
- I'd rather have the "rough consensus" process available and
not need it than need it and not have it available.
Setting an example for how to express interest ...
I think that the iSCSI single RFC and interoperability report are
good ideas, but I want to see a bunch of people expressing interest
in these, as significant effort is involved. It might make sense
to do the single iSCSI RFC but put off the interoperability report
(the resulting RFC would remain at Proposed Standard rather than
going to Draft Standard), as I'm not hearing about major iSCSI
I think the latter four items (SAM-4 for iSCSI, deprecate iFCP
address translation, MPI fix to MPA and iSER fixes) should all
I plan to author the iFCP address translation deprecation draft,
and review all other drafts.
I think that a virtual WG should be formed that plans to do its
work primarily via the mailing list. I believe the SAM-4 work
by itself is complex enough to need a working group - I would
expect design issues to turn up at least there and in determining
whether to remove certain iSCSI features, but I'm cautiously
optimistic that the mailing list is sufficient to work these
issues out (and concerned that travel restrictions are likely to
force use of the mailing list).
Ok, who wants to go next?
David L. Black, Distinguished Engineer
EMC Corporation, 176 South St., Hopkinton, MA 01748
+1 (508) 293-7953 FAX: +1 (508)
black_david@xxxxxxx Mobile: +1 (978) 394-7754
rddp mailing list
Ips mailing list