SORT BY:

LIST ORDER
THREAD
AUTHOR
SUBJECT


SEARCH

IPS HOME


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

    RE: iSCSI version number



    I 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