Re: iSCSI version number

["Eddy Quicksall" <ESQuicksall@hotmail.com>]

I have mixed emotions ... I agree with Bob in principal.

But, I figured the reason you changed it was actually to distinguish from
rev 0 ... as I understand it, Intel has already released code that conforms
to rev 0 (but Intel should respond to this).

If we don't increase the version, how do we protect ourselves from running
into one of the Intel controllers?

Eddy

----- Original Message -----
From: <julian_satran@il.ibm.com>
To: <ips@ece.cmu.edu>
Sent: Wednesday, July 04, 2001 1:13 AM
Subject: Re: iSCSI version number


>
>
> Robert,
>
> You have a good point - and for this reason  I intended to keep the
version
> number to 01 up to the RFC date.
> But several folks on the list tought that we are too far from 01 (one even
> suggested that we number according to the draft number).
>
> I would like to hear some more voices.
>
> Julo
>
> "Robert D. Russell" <rdr@mars.iol.unh.edu> on 03-07-2001 22:06:00
>
> Please respond to "Robert D. Russell" <rdr@mars.iol.unh.edu>
>
> To:   Julian Satran/Haifa/IBM@IBMIL
> cc:   ips@ece.cmu.edu
> Subject:  iSCSI version number
>
>
>
>
> Julian:
>
> The 06-91 draft section 2.10.4 on page 57 lists the version number
> of the current draft as 0x2, whereas previously it was always 0x1.
> Shouldn't it still be 0x1??  After all, there has been no
> approved version 0x1, and the 06-91 draft is only a small
> incremental improvement over the 06 draft, not a major revision.
> Changing to version 0x2 implies a consensus on what 0x1 was,
> and there is none (was it the 06 draft, the 06 draft updated
> by some (all) of the mailing list e-mails that followed, or what?)
> What exactly would it mean to support version 0x1 when the current
> (still under revision draft) is 0x2 and there is no consensus on
> what version 0x1 was?  And what criteria will you use to decide
> when a version number changes and when it doesn't?
>
> I believe these drafts should remain version 0x1 until the "final"
> draft in this sequence is approved by IETF.  Otherwise, you will
> end up will a bunch of meaningless version numbers that will
> be impossible to track.
>
>
> Bob Russell
> InterOperability Lab
> University of New Hampshire
> rdr@iol.unh.edu
> 603-862-3774
>
>
>
>
>