SORT BY:

LIST ORDER
THREAD
AUTHOR
SUBJECT


SEARCH

IPS HOME


    [Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

    RE: iscsi: version number in draft 11



    Julian,
     
    The problem here is that I don't think the IESG regards them
    as arbitrary.  Mark's message on this topic reveals the underlying
    issue here:

    > BTW, there are paying customers that are buying and using
    >
    "ancient" iSCSI products that use version 0.

    Resetting the version number gives vendors a very strong incentive to
    update those products so that they'll interoperate.  The IESG has

    little interest in helping out folks who have shipped products based

    on Internet-Drafts (see the boilerplate introduction to every draft),

    and to the extent that this is the motivation for playing games with

    the version number, we're going to get a very poor reception.

    --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: Julian Satran [mailto:Julian_Satran@il.ibm.com]
    Sent: Thursday, February 28, 2002 2:53 AM
    To: Black_David@emc.com
    Cc: ips@ece.cmu.edu; owner-ips@ece.cmu.edu; rdr@io.iol.unh.edu
    Subject: RE: iscsi: version number in draft 11


    David,

    We could move to 10 when going RFC - version numbers are arbitrary anyhow.

    Julo


    Black_David@emc.com
    Sent by: owner-ips@ece.cmu.edu

    28-02-02 01:13

           
            To:        rdr@io.iol.unh.edu, ips@ece.cmu.edu
            cc:        
            Subject:        RE: iscsi: version number in draft 11

           


    Folks,

    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 11:18:08 2002
8929 messages in chronological order