|
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] RE: iSCSI Version Info: Version 1 and not 0I'd agree with this David. I would claim bumping the version number would require a new Last Call (or at least a mini one) I don't see a reason for bumping the version number, as there are no previous versions of the protocol deployed... I am being strict on purpose, people that implement drafts get what they deserve... (ok I paraphrase the boilerplate) The fastest way to an RFC is to stick with version 1.0 (ok 0.0) Bill -----Original Message----- From: owner-ips@ece.cmu.edu [mailto:owner-ips@ece.cmu.edu] On Behalf Of Black_David@emc.com Sent: Tuesday, February 25, 2003 7:19 AM To: andre@linux-ide.org; ips@ece.cmu.edu Subject: RE: iSCSI Version Info: Version 1 and not 0 Importance: High I'm going to put a stop to this here. The only voice I see for changing the version number is Andre Hedrick's, hence I believe there is rough consensus in the IPS WG for not changing the version number - if anyone other than Andre wants it changed now, please post to the list and explain why. As for specific issues about reasons involved in changes or lack thereof ... > Considering the handful of changes just related to various parameters > since the premature changing of the version code to 0x00 after the > release of the v12 specification in April of 2002. These alone should > warrant a final RFC version number. That's not correct - the reset to 0x00 was late, not premature. The version number should not have been incremented as it had been several times prior to then, and was set back to zero to encourage the premature extinction of implementations that did not match the specification. Keeping obsolete implementations of old Internet-Drafts alive is something the IETF discourages - see the standard I-D boilerplate. As for "warrant a final RFC version number" - we missed the train on that one (partly my fault). The point in time to change that number would have been completion of WG Last Call. As of now when there is no technical change allowed between IESG approval and RFC publication, changing the version number to indicate that the document is a published RFC makes little sense. > This also shows how difficult it is to be backwards compatible with > all parameter changes since version 0x00 was set almost 11 months ago That was deliberate. The goal is that any implementation that is based on an old version of the iSCSI draft get updated or retired forthwith. The alternative of having a dozen different version numbers and expecting implementers to implement a dozen different versions of backwards compatibility based on the version number is unreasonable. The development of this belief that the version number would allow detection and preservation of old implementations is evidence that the reset to 0x00 was late, not premature. Any implementation that doesn't comply to the latest -20 draft is obsolete and needs to be fixed, ASAP. See the Internet-Draft boilerplate. > Congrats! You have pointed to a justified reason to never change the > version from 0. Since changing the "wire format" seems unrealistic, > and this denotes the protocol, it looks like version 0 is glued and > tatoo'd. That's a bit extreme. Any serious incompatible protocol change would be grounds to change the version number, not just a "wire format" change, but it is (at least my) strong intention (and hope) that there be no such changes anytime soon. > 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. Saying that an implementation complies with the final IESG-approved version of iSCSI or the RFC when the implementation doesn't is usually called "fraud". Customers have more than adequate recourse (legal and otherwise) to deal with vendors who behave in such a fashion. Thanks, --David ---------------------------------------------------- David L. Black, Senior Technologist EMC Corporation, 176 South St., Hopkinton, MA 01748 +1 (508) 293-7953 FAX: +1 (508) 293-7786 black_david@emc.com Mobile: +1 (978) 394-7754 ----------------------------------------------------
Home Last updated: Tue Feb 25 17:19:25 2003 12366 messages in chronological order |