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

[Bill Studenmund <wrstuden@wasabisystems.com>]

On Mon, 10 Jun 2002, David Robinson wrote:

> > What happens if we're somewhere inbetween? Or what if we find an issue
> > where 80% of the implementations all chose the same way?
> >
> > I'm trying to scope out the shades of gray we might run into.
>
>
> As a reminder about the IETF standards process, RFC2026. The IPS
> working group is driving towards "Proposed Standard" which
> by definition: "Implementors should treat Proposed Standards as
> immature specifications." The next step is "Draft Standard"
> where there is expectation that changes will be made between
> Proposed and Draft.  "A Draft Standard is normally considered
> to be a final specification..."
>
> To move from Proposed to Draft is where two independant implementations
> are required and where the "80%" implementation problems are caught
> and fixed.
>
> The RFC we are driving towards is just the first step in a long
> path, there will be plenty of opportunities to fix "bugs" that
> are found we real implementations are built. Thus vendor specific
> keys are not needed, what we have today is not going to be
> the "Internet Standard."

So what do we tell our customers? Our paying, cranky customers? That they
are part of the great iSCSI experiment? Or worse yet, what are you going
to tell your sales folks when a big sale doesn't go because of some
interop quirk? Try again in 6 months when the equipment has already been
bought? :-)

I'm not saying we shouldn't work (hard) to fix all the problems we can.

I'm saying that a policy of, "You loose," to the customers who run into an
interop problem is impolite. :-|

Take care,

Bill