Re: IPS Draft Charter update

[julian_satran@il.ibm.com]

David,

The charter looks good and is well balanced.

I am however concerned that if we include all the work items - including
discovery - in the first version we might either miss our schedule or have
a half baked solution.

Can we exclude those from the first version and add them (either as a
separate/complementary spec) in the MIB timeframe?

A separate spec. could have the added advantage of being a good fit for
several infrastructures.

Julo





Black_David@emc.com on 20/07/2000 06:07:32

Please respond to Black_David@emc.com

To:   ips@ece.cmu.edu
cc:    (bcc: Julian Satran/Haifa/IBM)
Subject:  IPS Draft Charter update




Slightly updated version of the draft charter.  Comments
are welcome/encouraged, especially on the proposed schedule.
There will probably be an opportunity to bash the charter
in Pittsburgh, but bashing done on the list doesn't consume
time in the meeting.

--David

IP Storage (ips) Working Group Proposed Charter - DRAFT 4

There is significant interest in using IP-based networks to transport
block storage traffic.  This group will pursue the pragmatic approach of
encapsulating existing block storage protocols, such as SCSI and certain
Fibre Channel protocols, in an IP-based transport or transports.  The group
will focus on the transport or transports and related issues (e.g.,
security,
naming, discovery, and configuration), as opposed to modifying existing
block
storage protocols.  Standards for those protocols are controlled by other
standards organizations (e.g., T10 [SCSI] and T11 [Fibre Channel]).  The WG
cannot assume that any changes it desires will be made in these standards,
and hence will pursue approaches that do not depend on such changes unless
they are unavoidable and in that case will create a document to be
forwarded
to the standards group responsible for the technology explaining the
issue and requesting the desired changes be considered.  The WG will
endeavor to ensure high quality communications with these standards
organizations.

The storage protocols to be encapsulated expect a reliable transport,
in that failure to deliver data is considered to be a rare event for
which time-consuming recovery is acceptable.  This has implications
for both the choice of transport protocols and design of the
encapsulation(s).  Encapsulations of the storage protocols may require
quality of service assurances (e.g., predictable latency) to operate
successfully; the WG will consider what assurances are appropriate and
how to provide such assurances in shared traffic environments
based on existing IETF QoS mechanisms such as Differentiated Services.

Use of an IP-based transport raises issues that do not occur in existing
storage transports.  The WG will address at least the following issues:
- Congestion control suitable for shared traffic network environments, such
as
     the Internet.
- Security measures, including authentication and privacy, sufficient
     to defend against threats up to and including those that can be
     expected on a public network.
- Storage naming and discovery mechanisms for block storage services
     on IP-based networks, including both discovery of storage for
     access by the discovering entity, and discovery for management.
- Management, including appropriate MIB definition.

The WG will consider issues raised by bridges and gateways to existing
implementations of block storage protocols in order to support effective
interoperability of the protocols developed in the working group with other
implementations and/or encapsulations of the same block storage
protocol(s).
The WG will strive to support the approaches to discovery, multi-pathing,
and booting taken by the existing block storage protocols it encapsulates
at the levels of those protocols.

It may be necessary for block storage traffic to pass through Network
Address Translators (NATs) and/or firewalls in some circumstances; the
WG will endeavor to design NAT- and firewall-friendly protocols that do
not dynamically select target ports or require Application Level Gateways.

Effective implementations of some IP transports for block storage traffic
are likely to require hardware acceleration; the WG will consider issues
concerning the effective implementation of its protocols in hardware.

The standard internet checksum is weaker than the checksums used by
existing
block storage implementations.  The WG will consider what levels of data
integrity assurance are required for block storage traffic over IP networks
and how they should be achieved.

The WG will produce a framework document describing the encapsulation or
encapsulations it intends to pursue, and requirements, applicability
and protocol specification documents for each encapsulation.  The framework
document will consider whether both end-system and gateway node (including
gateways to Fibre Channel) requirements can be accommodated in a single
protocol
family (e.g., as has been done by the IP Security Protocol).  The
applicability
and requirements documents will consider both disk and tape devices and
take
note of the variation in scale from single drives to large disk arrays and
tape libraries; the protocols need not be applicable to all such devices.

The WG will not work on:
- Extensions to existing block storage protocols beyond those strictly
     necessary for the use of IP-based transports.
- Modifications to internet transport protocols or approaches requiring
     transport protocol options that are not widely supported,
     although the WG may recommend use of such options for block storage
     traffic.
- Support for environments in which significant data loss or data
     corruption is acceptable.
- File system protocols.

Milestones

Aug 00 Initial meeting in Pittsburgh.  Launch framework discussion to
     select encapsulation approach or approaches.
Sep 00 Publish initial version of framework draft reflecting WG consensus
     on encapsulation approach or approaches.
Dec 00 Discuss framework, and requirements, applicability
     and protocol specification drafts at IETF meeting in San Diego.
Jan 01 Submit framework and at least one set of requirements,
applicability,
     and protocol specification drafts to IESG.
Mar 01 Discuss MIB(s) and any ancillary drafts required to use the
     specified protocols at IETF meeting in Minneapolis.
May 01 Submit primary MIB draft to IESG.

Aug 01 Meet at IETF meeting to close any open issues and finish any
outstanding
     work items.