RE: iSCSI: Some proposed vendor-specific (X-) keys

[Bill Studenmund <wrstuden@wasabisystems.com>]

On Mon, 10 Jun 2002, THALER,PAT (A-Roseville,ex1) wrote:

> Ken,
>
> The incentive is that, in my experience, when products interoperate
> out of the chute (because the spec is clear) the market grows quickly.
> When interoperability is a nightmare built in by testing and tweaks,
> then markets grow slowly.
>
> Ambiguities need to be fixed. A number that have been raised recently
> have been fixed. If there are ones you feel haven't been addressed, I
> would like to see them fixed. That is what we should do rather than
> planning on building in work arounds.

I agree that if folks know of ambiguities, we should fix them. PLEASE
bring them up. NOW. :-)

I also agree that we shouldn't ship a spec with what we know to be holes
in it. In fact, that's why my EMails have been quite, shall we say,
vigorous. _I_ want iSCSI to be the best spec it can.

The question to me, though, is two-fold. 1) as my other note indicates, I
think these keys have value on their own (I don't plan on using them for
bug adaptability, just info).

2) (and this is the bigger question) What do we do about bugs we find
*after* we get to RFC stage?

Yes, we fix them in the next version. But how quickly are we going to get
that version out?

Are we going to crank RFCs out as fast as Julian can make I-D drafts now?
I doubt it. If we were, then I think saying, "Update to the next version,"
is a reasonable approach.

I expect iSCSI 2 (or 1.1) will be on the order of a year or more out from
iSCSI. What does everyone else think?

What do we do in the mean time? And shouldn't we think about that now?

Take care,

Bill