|
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] RE: iSCSI: version numberOn Sun, 23 Feb 2003, Paul Koning wrote: > >>>>> "Andre" == Andre Hedrick <andre@linux-ide.org> writes: > > Andre> Ranga: > > Andre> Applying your logic against the success of the "Plugfests", > Andre> the version is a formality ? This formality logically defines > Andre> the difference between Draft and RFC, otherwise how will the > Andre> customer know the reported feature sets. This is a > Andre> distinction which allows people to make decisions. Without > Andre> the forcing the version to 1, there is no way to tell the > Andre> difference in products. > > Then again, drafts have no status, so the protocol version field that > was used in drafts, or a desire to be different from drafts, isn't a > particularly good argument. You may recall that some people asked for > version numbers to go up as new drafts were issued, and they were told > "no". > > I'd suggest leaving the version number alone. Not a valid reason in life, "just because", don't do it. The possible rational for not boosting the rev during the drafts was to preserve the version 1 for the RFC. Maybe someone else will will have a valid reason based on IETF history to not change the version, but the one presented as "no" is far to weak. Cheers, Andre Hedrick LAD Storage Consulting Group
Home Last updated: Tue Feb 25 03:19:14 2003 12359 messages in chronological order |