|
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] RE: iscsi: version number in draft 11Folks, I've warned in the past that this use of version numbers is going to cause problems, as it encourages the longevity of obsolete implementations that don't interoperate. Version numbers should NEVER have been used for identification of draft versions - in 20/20 hindsight a text key that could have been dropped from the final RFC would have been better. Prior guidance from the ADs has been that a version number change from 0 to 1 in going to RFC would be ok. Let's reset the version number to 0, and anyone still using something based on a draft from back when the version number was still 0 has something truly ancient and is SOL. 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 --------------------------------------------------- > -----Original Message----- > From: Robert D. Russell [mailto:rdr@io.iol.unh.edu] > Sent: Wednesday, February 27, 2002 2:36 PM > To: ips@ece.cmu.edu > Subject: iscsi: version number in draft 11 > > > Julian: > > The version number in draft 10-94 is still 0x3, > the same as it was in draft 9 and draft 10. > > Would you please change it to 0x4 for draft 11. > > Of course these numbers still need to be taken with > a grain of salt, but testing is considerably > simpler and more robust when one side identifies the > draft it intends to conform to in a manner that can > be checked by the other side. > > Thanks, > > Bob Russell > InterOperability Lab > University of New Hampshire > rdr@iol.unh.edu > 603-862-3774 >
Home Last updated: Thu Feb 28 02:18:07 2002 8922 messages in chronological order |