|
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] RE: iSCSI version numberI am not sure that increasing the version number in draft-07 will provide this protection. I believe drafts 3 through 6 had the same version number (0x01) but they don't interoperate. On the other hand, drafts 6 and 7 will have different version numbers and they very much interoperate. I prefer keeping the version number at 0x01 until the final draft. -Ayman > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-ips@ece.cmu.edu [mailto:owner-ips@ece.cmu.edu]On Behalf Of > Eddy Quicksall > Sent: Wednesday, July 04, 2001 2:52 PM > To: julian_satran@il.ibm.com; ips@ece.cmu.edu > Cc: Tri.G[tri.g.nguyen@intel.com] > Subject: Re: iSCSI version number > > > 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 > > > > > > > > > > >
Home Last updated: Tue Sep 04 01:04:21 2001 6315 messages in chronological order |