Subject: Re: Moved to Historic: RFC 5047 on DA: Datamover Architecture for the Internet Small Computer System Interface (iSCSI)

From: John C Klensin <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 25 Mar 2020 22:27:07 -0400

I am not questioning the decision to move this document to
Historic, but I don't remember seeing a Last Call announcement
and there does not appear to be anything in the datatracker
about this RFC since its approval and publication in 2007. 

My understanding has been that the RFC Editor stopped moving
IETF Stream documents to Historic on its own initiative many
years ago.  Was there a Last Call?  If this was done as an IESG
executive decision, where is the decision and the motivation for
doing it with this document at this time, documented?

thanks,
   john

--On Wednesday, March 25, 2020 18:41 -0700
[email-masked] wrote:

> RFC 5047 has been reclassified as Historic.
> 
>         
>         RFC 5047
> 
>         Title:      DA: Datamover Architecture for the 
>                     Internet Small Computer System Interface
> (iSCSI)          Author:     M. Chadalapaka,
>                     J. Hufferd,
>                     J. Satran,
>                     H. Shah
>         Status:     Historic
>         Stream:     IETF
>         Date:       October 2007
>         Pages:      49
>         Updates/Obsoletes/SeeAlso:   None
> 
>         I-D Tag:    draft-ietf-ips-iwarp-da-05.txt
> 
>         URL:        https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5047
> 
>         DOI:        10.17487/RFC5047
> 
> The Internet Small Computer System Interface (iSCSI) is a SCSI
> transport protocol that maps the SCSI family
> of application protocols onto TCP/IP.  Datamover Architecture
> for iSCSI (DA) defines an abstract model in which the
> movement of data between iSCSI end nodes is logically
> separated from the rest of the iSCSI protocol in order to
> allow iSCSI to adapt to innovations available in new IP
> transports.  While DA defines the architectural functions
> required of the class of Datamover protocols, it does not
> define any specific Datamover protocols.  Each such Datamover
> protocol, defined in a separate document, provides a
> reliable transport for all iSCSI PDUs, but actually moves the
> data required for certain iSCSI PDUs without involving the
> remote iSCSI layer itself.  This document begins with an
> introduction of a few new abstractions, defines a layered
> architecture for iSCSI and Datamover protocols, and then
> models the interactions within an iSCSI end node between the
> iSCSI layer and the Datamover layer that happen in order to
> transparently perform remote data movement within an IP
> fabric.  It is intended that this definition will help map
> iSCSI to generic Remote Direct Memory Access (RDMA)-capable IP
> fabrics in the future comprising TCP, the Stream Control
> Transmission Protocol (SCTP), and possibly other underlying
> network transport layers, such as InfiniBand.  
> 
> This document is a product of the IP Storage Working Group of
> the IETF.
> 
> HISTORIC: This memo defines a Historic Document for the
> Internet community.  It does not specify an Internet standard
> of any kind. Distribution of this memo is unlimited.
> 
> This announcement is sent to the IETF-Announce and rfc-dist
> lists. To subscribe or unsubscribe, see
>   https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-announce
>   https://mailman.rfc-editor.org/mailman/listinfo/rfc-dist
> 
> For searching the RFC series, see
> https://www.rfc-editor.org/search For downloading RFCs, see
> https://www.rfc-editor.org/retrieve/bulk
> 
> Requests for special distribution should be addressed to
> either the author of the RFC in question, or to
> [email-masked].  Unless specifically noted
> otherwise on the RFC itself, all RFCs are for unlimited
> distribution.
> 
> 
> The RFC Editor Team
> Association Management Solutions, LLC
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> IETF-Announce mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-announce

---

From: "Pete Resnick" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 25 Mar 2020 21:50:52 -0500

It took a bit to find it, but there was a Last Call:

https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf-announce/lijeNVjkekVJNawP_QfoOJAxqrU

It would probably be useful to put RFC numbers in the Subject: of the 
Last Call instead of just the document title.

pr

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 26 Mar 2020 16:20:06 +1300

It's a cut and paste error:

5047 DA: Datamover Architecture for the Internet Small Computer System
     Interface (iSCSI). M. Chadalapaka, J. Hufferd, J. Satran, H. Shah.
     October 2007. (Format: TXT, HTML) (Updated by RFC7146) (Status:
     INFORMATIONAL) (DOI: 10.17487/RFC5047

5074 DNSSEC Lookaside Validation (DLV). S. Weiler. November 2007.
     (Format: TXT, HTML) (Status: INFORMATIONAL) (DOI: 10.17487/RFC5074)

The title of 5047 was used instead of the correct title of 5074.

Regards
   Brian Carpenter

---

From: "Pete Resnick" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 25 Mar 2020 22:44:44 -0500

Oh dear, I didn't even notice that. The announcement was for 5047 when 
it was supposed to be for 5074.

pr

-- 
Pete Resnick https://www.episteme.net/
All connections to the world are tenuous at best

---

From: John C Klensin <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 26 Mar 2020 00:08:57 -0400

--On Thursday, March 26, 2020 16:20 +1300 Brian E Carpenter
<[email-masked]> wrote:

> 5047 DA: Datamover Architecture for the Internet Small
> Computer System      Interface (iSCSI). M. Chadalapaka, J.
> Hufferd, J. Satran, H. Shah.      October 2007. (Format: TXT,
> HTML) (Updated by RFC7146) (Status:      INFORMATIONAL) (DOI:
> 10.17487/RFC5047
> 
> 5074 DNSSEC Lookaside Validation (DLV). S. Weiler. November
> 2007.      (Format: TXT, HTML) (Status: INFORMATIONAL) (DOI:
> 10.17487/RFC5074)
> 

Pete,

Thanks.  I obviously didn't search hard enough, partially
because I was looking for 5047, which is what the RFC Editor
announcement said.  I would have expected information in the
datatracker too and, behold, when I look under 5074, as Brian's
discovery suggested, there it is.

Brian, the cut and paste error, if that is what it was involved
the whole business because the subject line on the announcement,
and the text in the body of the announcement message was for
5047 and its title.  

The good news is that I just checked the RFC index and the
status is correct for both documents.  However, while the
datatracker page for 5074 says "Status changed by
status-change-dlv-to-historic", when I go to look at that page
and the IESG evaluation record and History, I see hints of
"topics under discussion" and a DISCUSS position that was
dropped (and changed to a "yes") apparently without any comment.

When I follow that comment through to the datatracker page for
draft-ietf-dnsop-obsolete-dlv, I find that it is in the RFC
Editor queue and marked "AUTH48-DONE", which makes the reason
the DISCUSS concerns were dropped clear, but that is certainly
not obvious from the tracker records for the status change.

I assume it is due to all of the trauma around xml2rfc v3, but,
after reviewing the datatracker information, I'm a bit surprised
that it took the RFC Editor between early November and today to
post their announcement (if that announcement was needed at
all).  Or perhaps the wrong announcement was sent out as well as
the wrong RFC number and title and what really should have gone
out was the RFC publication announcement for
draft-ietf-dnsop-obsolete-dlv .

Clearly a fairly minor human error in the announcement, which I
assume will be corrected.  None of it is really a problem and I
don't intend to complain.  However, if one of our goals with
these announcements and the datatracker information is to leave
clear tracks for future historians, we maybe could be doing a
bit better and requiring a bit less skill and effort to connect
all the dots.

    thanks,
    john

---

From: S Moonesamy <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 25 Mar 2020 22:55:47 -0700

Hi John,
>draft-ietf-dnsop-obsolete-dlv .

Yesterday, there were some comments about whether there was any 
announcement about retiring DNSSEC Lookaside Validation (DLV).  From 
what I remember, that topic was discussed some time ago.  I looked up 
the relevant RFCs and the datatracker to find out whether there was 
any information there.  The reclassification was not reflected in the 
RFC Editor records.  I posted a message to DNSOP about the matter and 
copied it to the RSE.  I assume that it explains the following: 
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf-announce/v80rDtxfHBPu7nvCLvxl9ym5ITg/

The RFC Editor lists the date of the status change for RFC 5074 as 
September 2019.  However, the approval announcement was sent out in 
November 2019.

Regards,
S. Moonesamy