|
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] iSCSI: Framing Requirements TextThis issue appears to have been addressed in 10-92, but it's important enough to comment on here. Somesh wrote and Julian responded: > The language in A.1 should be changed from the most recent > change. Two things on the changes - > 1. We should have a MAY instead of (the now lower case) should > to indicate the agreement reached - or worst case delete the sentence. > > +++ the text reflects the currecnt agreement - the lower case should > indicates a standard MAY with the performance warning that appears > elswhere. I could add the MAY but that would make the text even less > readable > +++ Use of lower case must/should/may to imply upper case (i.e., RFC 2119) MUST/SHOULD/MAY requirements in any fashion is an invitation to confusion. A lower case "should" may not contain any RFC 2119 implication, depending on how it's used. The best bet for clarity is to use the RFC 2119 terms for their intended purpose, as the 10-92 text does: If a receiver indicates that it desires a marker, the sender MAY agree (during negotiation) and provide the marker at the desired interval. This conveys the requirement level clearly. Also, for those who need it, Julian's web site where the 10-92 draft can be found is at http://www.haifa.il.ibm.com/satran/ips/ To make it easier for those who may have joined the list recently, any post announcing the availability of something on Julian's web site should include this link. Thanks, --David --------------------------------------------------- David L. Black, Senior Technologist EMC Corporation, 42 South St., Hopkinton, MA 01748 +1 (508) 249-6449 *NEW* FAX: +1 (508) 497-8500 black_david@emc.com Cell: +1 (978) 394-7754 ---------------------------------------------------
Home Last updated: Mon Feb 25 15:18:10 2002 8880 messages in chronological order |