SORT BY:

LIST ORDER
THREAD
AUTHOR
SUBJECT


SEARCH

IPS HOME


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

    RE: London: Call for agenda items



    Julian:
    
    Ok.
    In the future, what criteria will be used to determine when the version
    number changes?  My personal opinion is still that draft 7 is really just
    a refinement and clarification of ambiguities in draft 6, and does
    not add any major features that justify a version change. However, ...
    
    Thanks,
    
    Bob Russell
    InterOperability Lab
    University of New Hampshire
    rdr@iol.unh.edu
    603-862-3774
    
    On Wed, 18 Jul 2001, Julian Satran wrote:
    
    > Robert,
    > 
    > In fact most of my mail requested us to stay at 02 to differentiate from
    > 06.
    > But I am still open (until tomorrow!).
    > 
    > Julo
    > 
    > "Robert D. Russell" <rdr@mars.iol.unh.edu> on 18-07-2001 16:48:38
    > 
    > Please respond to "Robert D. Russell" <rdr@mars.iol.unh.edu>
    > 
    > To:   Julian Satran/Haifa/IBM@IBMIL
    > cc:   ips@ece.cmu.edu
    > Subject:  RE: London: Call for agenda items
    > 
    > 
    > 
    > 
    > Julian:
    > 
    > Hopefully the version number in this new rev will go back to 1,
    > not 2 -- your call for comments on this did not get many comments
    > (at least not on the mailing list), but those that did comment
    > seemed mostly to favor staying at version 1 during the draft
    > stage.
    > 
    > Bob Russell
    > InterOperability Lab
    > University of New Hampshire
    > rdr@iol.unh.edu
    > 603-862-3774
    > 
    > On Wed, 18 Jul 2001, Julian Satran wrote:
    > 
    > > rev. 07 will be issued this week. Julo
    > >
    > > "Douglas Otis" <dotis@sanlight.net> on 18-07-2001 02:37:36
    > >
    > > Please respond to "Douglas Otis" <dotis@sanlight.net>
    > >
    > > To:   Black_David@emc.com, ips@ece.cmu.edu
    > > cc:
    > > Subject:  RE: London: Call for agenda items
    > >
    > >
    > >
    > >
    > > David,
    > >
    > > Unless I missed something, iSCSI is still at the same revision as the
    > last
    > > interim meeting.  Will there be an updated draft presented prior to the
    > > meeting?  It is difficult to understand the consensus that has be reached
    > > just upon examining the reflector.  Is there a document that reflects
    > these
    > > current changes?
    > >
    > > Doug
    > >
    > > > We're starting to assemble the London agenda.  iSCSI
    > > > draft authors, please coordinate your request for time
    > > > with John Hufferd (iSCSI Technical Coordinator,
    > > > hufferd@us.ibm.com).  Anyone else wanting agenda time
    > > > should send the request to me, including the purpose
    > > > of the time and the associated Internet-Draft (if any).
    > > >
    > > > A couple of reminders:
    > > > - London is primarily for iSCSI-related topics.  FCIP and
    > > >    iFCP topics will be take up in the Orange County,
    > > >    CA interim meeting due to the conflict between
    > > >    the London IETF meetings and the T11 meetings.
    > > > - Agenda time is to work on open issues.  ASSUME THAT
    > > >    ATTENDEES HAVE READ THE DRAFTS!  Time should not
    > > >    be used for presentations covering draft contents.
    > > >
    > > > 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 01:04:17 2001
6315 messages in chronological order