Re: iSCSI: Towards Urgent Pointer Consensus

[David Robinson <david.robinson@EBay.Sun.COM>]

Douglas Otis wrote:
> At the least, strike this sentence.  If this proposal seeks to not redefine
> TCP then there is no need to specify TCP behavior.  This proposal has yet to
> document an API that can take advantage of this required and likely
> problematic Urgent Pointer Record Marking.  As this mechanism is likely to
> be problematic and the API has yet to be provided, the entire option should
> be removed.  Requiring dramatically different data handling without any
> means to identify whether this option is in use will be to the detriment of
> those making adapters.  The WG may wish to continue discussion as to whether
> the use of flagging the first byte of each PDU as urgent should be a SHOULD,
> but until there is a complete proposal that includes the API, this seem
> premature.

In general the IETF does not create API standards, just protocols.  At
best
it provides Informational documentation suggesting APIs that could be
used.

The key question is not *what* the API is, but *if* an API can be
created
to support the feature. As a system architect the answer is clearly yes
that an API can be created to reflect the desired semantics.

While I am not convinced in the value of using URG, the lack of an API
specification MUST NOT stop discussion of the architectural merits.

	-David