SORT BY:

LIST ORDER
THREAD
AUTHOR
SUBJECT


SEARCH

IPS HOME


    [Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

    iSCSI simplification



    The word "profiles" is leading to unproductive analogies
    to profiles that have been used in other standards contexts.
    
    Many of the cited examples of profiles in other standards
    contexts are efforts to clean up interoperability
    messes after the fact, leading one of our ADs
    to inform us that making the mess in the first place
    will not be permitted:
    
    > there seems to be a misunderstanding somewhere - I was trying to say
    > nicely that a IPS protocol that has to have profiles would not pass
    > the IESG but I guess I was too nice - 
    
    Not only will it not pass the IESG - it's rather unlikely
    to get to WG Last Call, as your WG co-chairs have a duty
    not to Last Call a document in that state.  In particular,
    the Fibre Channel profiles are (unfortunately) examples
    of what not to do.
    
    We need to use words other than "profiles" because
    people don't agree on what that means, and some of the
    ideas it covers are actually useful.  When Julian says:
    
    > have them REPLACE the plethora or features we have now and will
    > contain a fixed set of capabilities
    
    this is headed in a useful direction.  Rather than using
    the term "profiles", I would talk about subsets of the
    protocol and conformance requirements.
    
    Truth be told, I did encourage Mark to post a pointer
    to the spreadsheet, not so much to encourage work on
    that spreadsheet, but rather, as Mark says:
    
    > [...] it will help show the sheer number of optional features we
    > are faced with, and may help us prioritize what must stay in the
    > protocol, and what we could live without in the interest of
    > simplicity.
    
    I count over 100 optional items in that listing,
    a number that has at least one too many zeros.
    
    Matt's comment on Fibre Channel use of profiles is an
    opportunity to make an important point:
    
    > Why have two profiles?  Just like in fibre channel, have one profile that
    > describes the parameters to be used to be interoperable with other devices
    > (would be your profile 0).  The other profile is simply the iSCSI spec,
    where
    > everything is open and negotiable.
    
    The IETF approach to this is to bit-bucket everything
    not involved in interoperability.  The result is that
    there isn't a need for a "profile 0" because everything
    outside it is either excised from the spec or has words
    like "MUST" or "MUST NOT" (cf. RFC 2119) attached to it
    to indicate what is required for interoperability.
    
    Thanks,
    --David
    
    ---------------------------------------------------
    David L. Black, Senior Technologist
    EMC Corporation, 42 South St., Hopkinton, MA  01748
    +1 (508) 435-1000 x75140     FAX: +1 (508) 497-8500
    black_david@emc.com       Mobile: +1 (978) 394-7754
    ---------------------------------------------------
    
    


Home

Last updated: Tue Sep 04 01:04:24 2001
6315 messages in chronological order