Re: description of recovery mechanisms

[Stephen Bailey <steph@cs.uchicago.edu>]

> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Black_David@emc.com [mailto:Black_David@emc.com]
> >
> > What Somesh is asking for is necessary.  We can
> > either put it in now, or discover it the hard
> > way later in interoperability testing with
> > considerably greater expenditure of time and
> > effort.

To be completely clear (as David know), we don't need to `discover'
this the hard way, because it's ALREADY been discovered in FC and
before that in ||SCSI.  We KNOW this needs to be specified (OR, we
won't interoperate---your choice).

> More than just a description is necessary.  I believe the proliferation of
> options regarding recovery will make for an interoperability nightmare
> similar to early iterations of Fibre Channel protocols.  Too many options
> and too much ambiguity result in too many conflicting interpretations.  We
> need to simplify, remove options, over specify with examples.

What she said.

Steph