RE: iSCSI: version number

[Andre Hedrick <andre@linux-ide.org>]

Ranga:

Applying your logic against the success of the "Plugfests", the version is
a formality ?  This formality logically defines the difference between
Draft and RFC, otherwise how will the customer know the reported feature
sets.  This is a distinction which allows people to make decisions.
Without the forcing the version to 1, there is no way to tell the
difference in products.  Those who have set this in hardware, should
consider asic respins if their firmware is short in design.  Those who are
providing the dynamic and full versions under software have no excuse to
not updated.  This update would allow the vendor to obtain feedback and
push any erratiums needed without raising issues.

Now are there any RFC's with a version of "ZERO" to date?
If there is not, we do not have bases to publish the RFC in a version < 1.
This may not be NCITS/ANSI/ISO, but ...

Cheers,

Andre Hedrick
LAD Storage Consulting Group

On Sat, 22 Feb 2003, Sankar, Ranga wrote:

> The RFC to be, still has not decided to go with version 1.
> Also i believe that the IETF does not have a rule that requires 
> the version to start with 1 after ratification. It is left
> to the working group to decide on the version number.
> 
> Having gone thru the Interoperability issues in  the Plugfests,
> i feel we should not change the version without a strong reason.
> 
> -ranga
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Andre Hedrick [mailto:andre@linux-ide.org]
> Sent: Saturday, February 22, 2003 2:39 AM
> To: Julian Satran
> Cc: Sankar, Ranga; Wysochanski, David; ips@ece.cmu.edu;
> owner-ips@ece.cmu.edu
> Subject: Re: iSCSI: version number
> 
> 
> 
> Those who are locked into version 0 will have issues with those who are
> properly reporting and following the RFC, to be.  Those who chose not to
> support dynamic loading of the version as a config option, fell short of
> seeing the history here in IPS-Refecltor.  Those who are capable of
> adjusting this reporting will be capable of forward and backwards
> compatability.
> 
> Also, what is IETF rules for version numbers and the requirements imposed
> upon formal ratification?
> 
> If those rules require a version number > 0, then there is no choice but
> to follow and comply with the rules according to the supervisory body that
> initiated the original ad-hoc and transformed to a formal WG.
> 
> Just my nickle of noise.
> 
> 
> Andre Hedrick
> LAD Storage Consulting Group
> 
> On Fri, 21 Feb 2003, Julian Satran wrote:
> 
> > There is no strong reason - it is only that all the people that have asked 
> > for this vocally in the past are now silent.
> > And if they keep being silent then it will stay at 0.
> > 
> > Julo
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > "Sankar, Ranga" <Ranga.Sankar@netapp.com> 
> > Sent by: owner-ips@ece.cmu.edu
> > 21/02/03 00:22
> > 
> > To
> > <ips@ece.cmu.edu>
> > cc
> > Julian Satran/Haifa/IBM@IBMIL, "Wysochanski, David" 
> > <David.Wysochanski@netapp.com>
> > Subject
> > Re: iSCSI: version number
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> >   
> > Could we leave the version number as 0? Is there a strong reason to make 
> > this 1? 
> > -ranga 
> > "Robert D. Russell" <rdr@io.iol.unh.edu> 
> > 20/02/03 16:59 
> >  To Julian Satran/Haifa/IBM@IBMIL 
> > cc ips@ece.cmu.edu 
> > Subject iSCSI: version number 
> >  
> >   
> > 
> > 
> > Julian: 
> > Now that draft 20 has been accepted as an IETF standard, 
> > shouldn't the version number in section 10.12.4 be changed 
> > to 0x01? 
> > Thanks 
> > Bob Russell 
> > InterOperability Lab 
> > University of New Hampshire 
> > rdr@iol.unh.edu 
> > 603-862-3774 
> > 
>