|
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] iSCSI: Procedural MattersTime to break a few more eggs ... (1) Iterating Long Responses. While I've been inundated by email lately, I don't think I've seen consensus on the list. Since this is in the context of the Naming draft, whoever's going to lead the discussion of this draft in London (Mark?) should prepare a slide on this issue so that we can attempt to resolve it there. (2) Login Text. To borrow a line from the late Admiral Hopper, "It's better to apologize than ask permission". This discussion about whether the WG approves of rewriting the login text is misdirected. I strongly encourage the core set of people involved in the bakeoff who are familiar with the login difficulties to write an iSCSI login draft containing a clear self-contained description of login, and recommend login simplifications as part of the draft. Once we have that text in front of us, we can figure out what to do with it - nobody's permission (mine, Julian's, etc.) is needed to write that draft, and the plugfest turned up what looks to me like a clear need to do something about this. (3) Version number. The word from above is that the version number should remain at 0 in the draft versions of iSCSI. It could be advanced to 1 for the approved RFC (i.e., the version of the draft prepared after the successful WG Last Call would set the version number to 1). As noted previously, discussions of interoperability of products implemented to Internet-Drafts should be sent directly to the bit bucket ;-). 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 01:04:12 2001 6315 messages in chronological order |