|
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] iSCSI version numbersLet me also point out that Matt's expectation of interoperability of implementations based on Internet-Drafts is misplaced. Vendors who ship products based on I-Ds do so at their own risk - there's more than enough warning that things are subject to change in the standard Internet-Draft boilerplate. My preference would be to hold the version number at 0 until the iSCSI spec is done. This will give vendors who have shipped to Internet-Draft versions an incentive to promptly update their code. If future plugfest events need to test multiple implementation variants, they can do roughly what was done this time - temporarily define the version numbers that will distinguish the variants *for that event only*. I would suggest use of *large* numbers for this purpose to avoid this sort of confusion in the future. 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 --------------------------------------------------- > -----Original Message----- > From: Robert D. Russell [SMTP:rdr@mars.iol.unh.edu] > Sent: Wednesday, July 18, 2001 8:23 PM > To: Matt Wakeley > Cc: ips > Subject: Re: London: Call for agenda items > > Matt: > > The problem is that there is no consensus version 1. > Most current "draft 6" implementations are really implementing > "draft 6+", where the "+" comes from the many corrections, > additions, deletions, etc. that appeared on the mailing list after > draft 6 was posted and that were necessary to make draft 6 workable. > In particular, most are using the new opcodes > because the opcodes published in draft 6 were a surprise, were widely > disliked, and were replaced (twice) in subsequent mailings. > There is no approved document that defines version 1. > The best hope for interoperabilty is to produce a stable standard > draft that can gain a reasonable consensus and then finalize the > process. > > Bob > > On Wed, 18 Jul 2001, Matt Wakeley wrote: > > > Robert, > > > > Your idea kills any hope of interoperability if some vendors choose to > ship > > products based on certain revisions of the draft - the current "0 vs 6" > case > > in point. > > > > -Matt > > > > "Robert D. Russell" wrote: > > > > > > Marjorie: > > > > > > True there have been new opcodes, but there have been new opcodes > > > before. My point is why start changing the version number NOW > > > when we haven't been doing it before? By your reasoning, we should > > > be up to version 7 now, not version 2. > > > A problem with changing the version numbers is that the current > > > scheme by which an initiator offers versions to a target is that > > > there can be no holes in the offering. If the version numbers > > > change too quickly it will be a lot of work to track the > > > intermediate versions. A version change should be really significant, > > > ie. at the IETF level, not at the draft level. We are still at the > > > draft level. > > > Bob Russell > > > > > > On Wed, 18 Jul 2001, KRUEGER,MARJORIE (HP-Roseville,ex1) wrote: > > > > > > > > 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, > ... > > > > > > > > Not true, there are significant changes to opcodes and some change > to header > > > > fields between v6 and v7 - that should *at least* be a criteria for > a > > > > version number change! > > > > > > > > Marj > > > > > >
Home Last updated: Tue Sep 04 01:04:16 2001 6315 messages in chronological order |