|
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] RE: Protocol Action: iSCSI to Proposed StandardThe document uses the term "transport" correctly. Chapter 1, from which the sentences in the mail message were drawn, clearly states that the term transport refers to a "SCSI transport", a phrase which it defines accurately. The mail message did omit several sentences from Chapter 1, including the sentences that defined "SCSI transport" and made it clear that that's the kind of transport under discussion in the offending sentence. Perhaps it should have included the whole chapter verbatim. Are you objecting to the actual document, namely draft-ietf-ips-iscsi-20.pdf, or only to the mail message that accompanied it? dj > In the context of an *Internet* RFC, it seems sensible to use the normal > Internet terminology -- unless one very very clearly indicates that a > term is being used in some different semantic. -----Original Message----- From: Loa Andersson [mailto:loa@pi.se] Sent: Friday, February 14, 2003 2:43 AM To: RJ Atkinson Cc: Mallikarjun C.; Bob Braden; sob@harvard.edu; mankin@psg.com; ips@ece.cmu.edu; ietf@ietf.org Subject: Re: Protocol Action: iSCSI to Proposed Standard Ran, would agree to this, and put even stronger "... Internet RFCs the normal Inernet terminology SHOULD be used, unless there are very stong and explicitly stated reasons not to ..." it should als be that the I* have a guiding role in this /Loa RJ Atkinson wrote: > > On Wednesday, Feb 12, 2003, at 13:24 America/Montreal, Mallikarjun C. > wrote: > >>> All the Internet documentation with which I am familiar, as well as the >> >> >> I think we have a case of overlapping vocabulary from two different >> domains. >> >> Per SCSI Architecture Model (SAM-2, SAM-3), iSCSI is very clearly >> a "SCSI transport protocol" (as opposed to a SCSI application layer >> protocol). >> Parallel SCSI, Fibre Channel etc. are all "SCSI transports" per SCSI >> conventions. >> That is all the critiqued abstract is trying to describe. > > > In the context of an *Internet* RFC, it seems sensible to use the normal > Internet terminology -- unless one very very clearly indicates that a > term is being used in some different semantic. One might postulate that > the document's editors and RFC-Editor could work out a mutually agreeable > editorial change here to add clarity. > > Ran > > > >
Home Last updated: Wed Feb 19 15:20:44 2003 12331 messages in chronological order |