Wesley, It seems to me that your first review just came in ;-). I.e., it would be useful to indicate the extent to which your current docs address how existing protocols were not sufficient.
If they don't yet do this, then that would appear to be a useful next step. Beyond that, what is the purpose of this review? I would expect that useful aspects of your protocol could be incorporated into standards track protocols under development, or that a new protocol (informational, experimental, or standards track) could be established based on your protocol. Can you address what your goals are? Joe Wesley Leggette wrote: >> you probably want to take a look at the work of the NFSv4 working group >> (http://tools.ietf.org/wg/nfsv4/charters), since NFS is the IETF's current >> major protocol in this space. >> >> The STORM working group (http://tools.ietf.org/wg/storm/charters) is >> currently >> chartered to do maintenance on the lower part of the IETF storage stack, >> namely, the iSCSI and RDMA protocols originally done in the now-concluded IPS >> and RDDP working groups. >> >> (I've CC'ed both NFSv4 and STORM on this reply.) >> >> Lars >> > > Thanks. I'll look into this. > > However, I should have been clear that we already have a protocol for our > product, and at this point we'd just like to publish it for review. I was > looking for a working group or people who would be interested in that. > > Wesley Leggette > Cleversafe, Inc. > >
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
