|
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] RE: profiles - a way to simplify iSCSIBernard, I understand you well stated (and well intentioned remarks) and it is hard not too agree with motherhood statements. However I have to mention that most of the features where added with care and only a very few remained after selection. Peace was not what we had in mind - but you can't outright reject feature that have a clearer rationale for a class of users. However the draft addresses a wide spectrum of devices with different requirements (as do most of the SCSI drafts). Some can be met only with minimal requirement (most low-end and office raid-boxes) while others require higher performance/reliability/maintainability etc. Profiles could clearly cluster the space and simplify implementation and testing. Regards, Julo Bernard Aboba <aboba@internaut.com> on 25-06-2001 09:09:34 Please respond to Bernard Aboba <aboba@internaut.com> To: Julian Satran/Haifa/IBM@IBMIL cc: ips@ece.cmu.edu Subject: RE: profiles - a way to simplify iSCSI > You are still missing my point. Profiles are not proposed "in addition" to > what we have but instead of. > They are not meant to remove features that where introduced for a > legitimate reason or another but rather to limit > the variability in implementations and testing. > The best way to limit the variability in implementations and testing is not to include so many "features" in the first place. It's often tempting to resolve potential conflicts by turning out a "kitchen sink spec" but that's almost always a worse choice than choosing between one of the alternatives. Similarly, options are a losing proposition because you have to implement them because someone else might, but you can't guarantee they'll be used. So if something doesn't make it into what would have been the "profile" I'd question why it can't be thrown out altogether. As part of the Draft Standards application, "features" not proven to interoperate with independent implementations have to be removed. So if a "feature" was inserted merely to keep the peace, has problematic interoperability or is not on the slate to be independently implemented, we might as well toss it out. "There's never a better time to weed a garden than RIGHT NOW."
Home Last updated: Tue Sep 04 01:04:24 2001 6315 messages in chronological order |