RE: iSCSI: Towards Urgent Pointer Consensus

["Douglas Otis" <dotis@sanlight.net>]

David,

Without at least an outline as how an API is to work which benefits from the
use of the Urgent Pointer Record Marking scheme, it is difficult to properly
discuss relative merits.  We can all imagine such an interface can be
created, but until details are roughly specified for the API to at least
proximal levels found in TCP or SCSI, then again, I think it is premature to
spend effort discussing this imagined mechanism.

Doug

> 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
>