Subject: [imss] Storm WG: Progress update

From: [email-masked]
Date: Thu, 14 May 2009 19:29:01 -0400

Progress is being made on the proposed storm WG - I plan to
post a new version of the proposed charter next week.  There
have been a few minor changes:
- The new iSCSI features work needs to include appropriate
	updates to the iSCSI MIB.
- Similarly, deprecating iFCP Address Translation mode
	will need to include an update to the iFCP MIB.
- It's useful to reference RFC 3723 for security and state
	that changes are not planned.

This is also a good time to remind people to subscribe to the
[email-masked] mailing list.  Once the WG is formed, cross-posting
to the other mailing lists will cease.  To subscribe, please
visit: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/storm .  Also,
this is another reminder that the [email-masked] list will be
shut down in favor of the [email-masked] mailing list in the
near future.

In addition, I've run into a minor hiccup involving access to
T10 (SCSI) and T11 (Fibre Channel) standards documents.  The
INCITS access rules changed recently to prohibit general
public access to final drafts of approved standards (access is
available to anyone whose company belongs to T10 or T11).  This
is not as big a problem as it might appear, because our primary
need in IETF is access to working drafts that remain publicly
accessible.

An important specific example is that part of the iSCSI update
work to SAM-4 is to specify a number of new task management
functions, including QUERY TASK.  It turns out that T10 has made
a minor, but important, change to QUERY TASK in their ongoing
SAM-5 work and hence the appropriate base document for this iSCSI
work appears to be revision 1 of SAM-5, which is publicly
accessible.  There are a number of other examples in which the
current working draft of the standard is an appropriate reference
document for the proposed storm WG work.

This should not be mistaken for a complete answer - some access
will be needed to final drafts of standards (e.g., those referenced
by RFCs that are to be updated).  A means for providing this
access to IETF participants has been worked out with T10.  I
expect the corresponding means to work with T11, but I need
to finish double-checking that before explaining how it'll work.

Thanks,
--David
----------------------------------------------------
David L. Black, Distinguished Engineer
EMC Corporation, 176 South St., Hopkinton, MA  01748
+1 (508) 293-7953             FAX: +1 (508) 293-7786
[email-masked]        Mobile: +1 (978) 394-7754
----------------------------------------------------

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Wed, 27 May 2009 11:15:42 -0400

> to finish double-checking that before explaining how it'll work.

So, here is the complete answer ...

Both T10 and T11 have designated IETF as a liaison organization
and have designated me as the individual responsible for the
liaison relationship with IETF.  This action authorizes me (as
the individual responsible for the liaison relationship) to provide
copies of final drafts of T10 and T11 standards to IETF participants
for their personal use in IETF standardization activities that are
related to T10 and T11 standards.  I plan to do this via responding
to email requests, and would ask people to be judicious in making
requests - in particular, if your organization is a T10 or T11
member, you already have direct access to all of these documents
and don't need to go through me.

We have to resort to this mechanism (e.g., vs. just posting the
final drafts) because INCITS, the parent organization of T10 and
T11, changed the access rules for these drafts last year.

Also, I would caution everyone that T10 and T11 use the term
'liaison' for almost all external relationships, whereas IETF
reserves that term for situations "when the IAB feels that
conditions warrant appointing" a liaison, and the IETF further
cautions: "Note that such appointments are rare as the best way
for organizations to work with the IETF is to do so within the
working groups."

The current intent is for the T10 and T11 relationships to follow
that advice via being handled directly with the storm WG(-to-be)
as opposed to being indirected through an IETF Liaison (e.g., as
that will cause a corresponding indirection on the T10 and T11
sides, with the potential to seriously gum up the works).

I'll send a v5 version of the proposed storm charter to the
list shortly, and this is what will probably be sent out for
IETF-wide review.

Replies to this message should go only to the [email-masked] list.
Thanks,
--David