Shepherd writeup

PROTO writeup: 
                      iSCSI Protocol (Consolidated)

Requested Publication Status: Proposed Standard
PROTO shepherd: David L. Black (STORM WG Co-Chair)

  (1.a) Who is the Document Shepherd for this document? Has the
        Document Shepherd personally reviewed this version of the 
        document and, in particular, does he or she believe this 
        version is ready for forwarding to the IESG for publication?

David L. Black ( is the Document Shepherd and a co-author
of the draft.  The Document Shepherd has reviewed this version of the document
and believes that it is ready for forwarding to the IESG for publication.

  (1.b) Has the document had adequate review both from key WG members 
        and from key non-WG members? Does the Document Shepherd have 
        any concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews that 
        have been performed?

The document has had sufficient review from key WG members, from implementers
who work on important iSCSI implementations (both initiator and target) outside
the WG and from key members of INCITS Technical Committee T10, the organization
responsible for SCSI standards.

  (1.c) Does the Document Shepherd have concerns that the document 
        needs more review from a particular or broader perspective, 
        e.g., security, operational complexity, someone familiar with 
        AAA, internationalization or XML?

Yes - the document updates the iSCSI profile of IPsec to include IPsec v3
(4300-series RFCs).  The security directorate has already designated a
well-qualified reviewer for this draft, Paul Hoffman, co-chair of the
ipsecme WG.  The document shepherd will work with the SecDir reviewer
to ensure that this concern is addressed in the Sec-Dir review.

  (1.d) Does the Document Shepherd have any specific concerns or 
        issues with this document that the Responsible Area Director
        and/or the IESG should be aware of? For example, perhaps he 
        or she is uncomfortable with certain parts of the document, or 
        has concerns whether there really is a need for it. In any 
        event, if the WG has discussed those issues and has indicated 
        that it still wishes to advance the document, detail those 
        concerns here. Has an IPR disclosure related to this document 
        been filed? If so, please include a reference to the 
        disclosure and summarize the WG discussion and conclusion on 
        this issue.


  (1.e) How solid is the WG consensus behind this document? Does it 
        represent the strong concurrence of a few individuals, with 
        others being silent, or does the WG as a whole understand and 
        agree with it?   

The WG consensus behind this document is solid; the WG as a whole
understands this document and agrees with the need for a single
consolidated iSCSI spec and the minor updates contained in this draft.

  (1.f) Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme 
        discontent? If so, please summarise the areas of conflict in 
        separate email messages to the Responsible Area Director. (It 
        should be in a separate email because this questionnaire is 
        entered into the ID Tracker.)


  (1.g) Has the Document Shepherd personally verified that the 
        document satisfies all ID nits? (See the Internet-Drafts Checklist 
        and Boilerplate checks are 
        not enough; this check needs to be thorough.

Yes.  idnits generates a number of comments that do not represent
actual problems with the draft.

        Has the document 
        met all formal review criteria it needs to, such as the MIB 
        Doctor, media type and URI type reviews?


  (1.h) Has the document split its references into normative and 


        Are there normative references to documents that 
        are not ready for advancement or are otherwise in an unclear 
        state? If such normative references exist, what is the 
        strategy for their completion? Are there normative references 
        that are downward references, as described in [RFC3967]? If 
        so, list these downward references to support the Area 
        Director in the Last Call procedure for them [RFC3967].

This document normatively references draft-ietf-storm-iscsi-sam-05, for
which an RFC publication request is being submitted along with the
publication request for this document.

In addition, this document normatively references five SCSI standards
that have been developed by INCITS Technical Committee T10 (,
namely SAM2, SAM3, SAM4, SBC and SPC3.  As completed standards, these
are not publicly available documents, because T10's parent standards
organizations fund their operations in part by charging for copies of
standards.  The document shepherd, David Black, is also the official
T10 Liaison to the IETF and in that role, he has been authorized by T10
to provide copies of these standards to IETF participants for their personal
use in IETF activities. If copies of these standarads are desired, please
contact the document shepherd, David Black (, directly.

  (1.i) Has the Document Shepherd verified that the document IANA 
        consideration section exists and is consistent with the body 
        of the document? If the document specifies protocol 
        extensions, are reservations requested in appropriate IANA 
        registries? Are the IANA registries clearly identified? If 
        the document creates a new registry, does it define the 
        proposed initial contents of the registry and an allocation 
        procedure for future registrations? Does it suggest a 
        reasonable name for the new registry? See [RFC5226]. If the 
        document describes an Expert Review process has Shepherd 
        conferred with the Responsible Area Director so that the IESG 
        can appoint the needed Expert during the IESG Evaluation?

The IANA Considerations section has been checked - the IANA Considerations
are clear and do not require any actions by IANA.

  (1.j) Has the Document Shepherd verified that sections of the 
        document that are written in a formal language, such as XML 
        code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, etc., validate correctly in 
        an automated checker?


  (1.k) The IESG approval announcement includes a Document 
        Announcement Write-Up. Please provide such a Document 
        Announcement Write-Up? Recent examples can be found in the
        "Action" announcements for approved documents. The approval 
        announcement contains the following sections: 

     Technical Summary

  This document describes a transport protocol for SCSI that works
  on top of TCP. The iSCSI protocol aims to be fully compliant with
  the standardized SCSI Architecture Model (SAM-2). RFC 3720
  defined the original iSCSI protocol. RFC 3721 discusses iSCSI
  Naming examples and discovery techniques. Subsequently, RFC 3980
  added an additional naming format to iSCSI protocol. RFC 4850
  followed up by adding a new public extension key to iSCSI. RFC
  5048 offered a number of clarifications and a few improvements and
  corrections to the original iSCSI protocol.

  This document obsoletes RFCs 3720, 3980, 4850 and 5048 by
  consolidating them into a single document and making additional
  updates to the consolidated specification. This document also
  updates RFC 3721 and RFC 3723. The text in this document thus
  supersedes the text in all the noted RFCs wherever there is a
  difference in semantics.

     Working Group Summary 

   There was very little dissent in the WG over the functionality in this
   document.  Significant WG discussion was devoted to correctly specifying
   SCSI-related identifiers used by this draft.  Rob Elliott and Ralph
   Weber (key members of the T10 SCSI standards organization) provided
   significant assistance in working through the identifier issues.

     Document Quality 

   iSCSI implementers from Dell, EMC, Microsoft, NetApp, RedHat and VMware
   have reviewed this document for quality and consistency with existing
   implementations.  The reviews indicate that the changes are clearly
   specified, and are not expected to be significantly disruptive to add to
   existing implementations.