RE: Preliminary San Diego Agenda

[Douglas Otis <dotis@sanlight.net>]

David,

As there is a 40 minute time-slot for discussion of framing, this would then
imply there is a TCP protocol that can use framing.  This framing is to
allow Application Specific Routines invoked upon receipt of segments on
specific ports to parse the encapsulation, extract data and then steer it to
locations unrelated to TCP.  This represents a significant departure from
TCP standards even if completion signaling is made similar to the standard
API.  Presently, the framing proposal is not seen as 100% so there is also a
cleanup process required to pickup data awaiting placement within this now
fragmented stream.  Do you envision using fields within the iSCSI PDUs for
marking completion ranges of ASR data steering?  Is this completion data
placed within SCSI descriptors as a linked list for then signaling
completion?  How is this new TCP going to work in your view?  Would you like
to spend a few minutes to discuss how this would also be possible with SCTP?

Doug

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-ips@ece.cmu.edu [mailto:owner-ips@ece.cmu.edu]On Behalf Of
> Black_David@emc.com
> Sent: Friday, December 01, 2000 1:25 PM
> To: ips@ece.cmu.edu
> Subject: Preliminary San Diego Agenda
>
>
> Sorry for the delays in getting this out -- life is
> what happens while one is busy making other plans.
>
> The time slots on this agenda are for discussions of
> status and issues, not lengthy technical presentations.
> No more than 5 minutes and 2 slides should be spent on
> discussion of the contents of a draft -- speakers should
> assume that the audience has read the drafts -- and
> 2 minutes is a good goal for review of status and content.
>
> There have been a number of requests for agenda time
> that could not be accommodated for a variety of reasons.
> I apologize for the fact that time pressures at my day
> job have made it impossible to send individual emails
> indicating that requests could not be accommodated.
>
> Thanks,
> --David
> ---------------------------------------------------
> David L. Black, Senior Technologist
> EMC Corporation, 42 South St., Hopkinton, MA  01748
> +1 (508) 435-1000 x75140     FAX: +1 (508) 497-8500
> black_david@emc.com       Mobile: +1 (978) 394-7754
> ---------------------------------------------------
>
>
>
> IETF IP Storage (ips) Working Group
> December 2000 San Diego Meeting
> Preliminary Agenda
> SUBJECT TO CHANGE
> -----------------------------------
>
> ----- Monday, December 11, 2000, 0900-1130 -----
>
> - Agenda Bashing and other Administrivia (10 min)
>
> - IP Storage Framework (15 min)
> 	draft-ietf-ips-framework-00.txt
>
> - Framing discussion (40 min)
> 	General discussion of framing for iSCSI and FCIP.
>
> - iSCSI Requirements and Design Considerations (30 min)
> 	draft-ietf-ips-iscsi-reqts-00.txt
>
> - iSCSI (40 min)
> 	draft-ietf-ips-iscsi-01.txt
>
> 	NOTE: draft-ietf-ips-iscsi-02.txt should be in the
> 	works.  The major change between the -01 and -02 drafts
> 	is the removal of the map and unmap commands.
>
> - iSCSI Bootstrap (10 min)
> 	draft-ietf-ips-iscsi-boot-00.txt
>
> - iSCSI MIB (5 min)
> 	draft-bakke-iscsimib-01.txt
>
> 	This draft is a starting point; co-authors are
> 	needed to help flesh it out to produce an iSCSI
> 	MIB draft for the WG.
>
> ----- Tuesday, December 12, 2000, 1300-1400 -------
>
> - iSCSI Naming and Discovery Requirements (15 min)
> 	draft-voruganti-ips-iscsi-disc-reqts-00.txt
>
> 	NOTE: This draft was requested by the WG.
>
> - iSNS (10 min)
> 	draft-tseng-ips-isns-01.txt
>
> 	This is an individual submission for consideration by the WG.
>
> - FCIP (15 min)
> 	draft-ietf-ips-fcovertcpip-01.txt
>
> - iFCP (10 min)
> 	draft-monia-ips-ifcp-00.txt
>
> 	This is an individual submission for consideration by the WG.
>
> 	Attendees may wish to read the related draft
> 	draft-monia-ips-ifcparch-00.txt for background information,
> 	but should be aware that the mFCP protocol and topics related
> 	to it are NOT subjects for discussion in this meeting.
>
> The last 10 minutes of this session are reserved for items that
> run over despite the best efforts of the WG co-chairs.
>
>