RE: London: Call for agenda items

["Julian Satran" <Julian_Satran@il.ibm.com>]

Robert,

There should be two criteria:

   substantial change
   after a plugfest :-)


Whatever happens first.
Hopefully there won't be many soon.

Julo

"Robert D. Russell" <rdr@mars.iol.unh.edu> on 18-07-2001 17:31:43

Please respond to "Robert D. Russell" <rdr@mars.iol.unh.edu>

To:   Julian Satran/Haifa/IBM@IBMIL
cc:   ips <ips@ece.cmu.edu>
Subject:  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
> > > ---------------------------------------------------
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>