RE: IPS Draft Charter update

[Black_David@emc.com]

Mark

Thanks for the suggestion:

> In addition the WG may consider emerging standards for storage quality
> of service and how they may be used in IP based storage. This would
include
> the specification of performance and availability service levels for block
> storage devices and the management of policies related to those service
> levels.

Would those be IETF standards, or some other standards
body/bodies?  If the latter, which ones?

--David

---------------------------------------------------
David L. Black, Senior Technologist
EMC Corporation, 42 South St., Hopkinton, MA  01748
+1 (508) 435-1000 x75140, FAX: +1 (508) 497-6909
black_david@emc.com  Cellular: +1 (978) 394-7754
---------------------------------------------------


> -----Original Message-----
> From:	Mark A. Carlson [SMTP:mark.carlson@sun.com]
> Sent:	Thursday, July 20, 2000 9:01 AM
> To:	Black_David@emc.com
> Cc:	ips@ece.cmu.edu
> Subject:	Re: IPS Draft Charter update
> 
> In addition to the network quality of service work, I would
> hope that it is in our scope to work on how storage quality
> of service would be specified for IP based storage.
> 
> I have suggested some words for the charter below:
> 
> Black_David@emc.com wrote:
> > 
> > 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.
> 
> Add:
> 
> In addition the WG may consider emerging standards for storage quality
> of service and how they may be used in IP based storage. This would
> include
> the specification of performance and availability service levels for block
> storage devices and the management of policies related to those service
> levels.
> 
> > 
> > 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:
> 
> ...
> 
> -- mark