Last Modified: 2005-10-03
Done | Initial draft of Protocol Comparison | |
Done | Initial draft of Threat Analysis | |
Done | Initial draft of MIB | |
Done | Initial draft of Rserpool Services document | |
Done | Initial draft of Pool Management document | |
Done | Initial draft of Rserpool Architecture document | |
Done | Initial draft of Binding Service document | |
Done | Submit Requirements document to IESG for Informational RFC | |
Done | Submit Comparison document to IESG for Informational RFC | |
Done | Initial draft of Resrpool Requirements document | |
Done | Initial draft of TCP Mapping document | |
Done | Initial draft of Applicability Statement | |
Mar 2003 | Submit Services document to IESG for Informational RFC | |
Done | Submit Architecture draft to IESG for Informational RFC | |
May 2003 | Submit TCP mapping to IESG for Proposed Standard RFC | |
Done | Submit Threat Analysis to IESG for Informational RFC | |
Aug 2003 | Submit Binding Service and Pool Management to IESG for Proposed Standard RFC | |
Aug 2003 | Submit Applicability Statement to IESG for Informational RFC | |
Nov 2003 | Submit MIB to IESG for Proposed Standard RFC |
RFC | Status | Title |
---|---|---|
RFC3237 | I | Requirements for Reliable Server Pooling |
Minutes for Rserpool from IETF-64 Summary of Rserpool Meeting at IETF #64 Approximately 30 people attended this meeting. The group initially discussed the Rserpool API draft and debated whether this is the right set of APIs to help application developers. Implementation experience is ongoing to determine this. There is an available library that can be used by developers, and a URL was provided by the author. The group then reviewed load balancing work. No presentation was available as documentation was not completed in time for the meeting cutoff date. The Chairs noted that there was a meeting between the A-Ds, the WG Chairs and the authors of the SASP draft where it was decided that this would be treated as an individual submission to the RFC editors documenting an existing implementation, and will continue on a separate track from work in Rserpool. There was a report on Reserpool implementations. Multiple implementations are available or in progress, and interoperability testing has been done on ASAP. Further interoperability testing is planned for next year, including testing of ENRP interoperability. There was a discussion on next steps for Rserpool. We had submitted 3 drafts to the IESG: the architecture, comparison and security threat analysis. The General Area reviewer commented that the drafts were not clear and were incomplete without the protocols documents. We explored several options on how to handle this. It was decided that the documents would be revised and improved, soliciting outside review of the updated drafts to ensure readability. In the meantime, work will continue towards completing the protocol documents, which are stable but continue to be updated with the results of implementation testing. Thanks. |