RE: profiles - a way to simplify iSCSI

["Mark Bradley" <markb@indstorage.com>]

This is a very slipery slope.  'Required to be implemented' means that
you must support to be compliant to a specification.  'Flavors' of
implementation to anything other than required sounds like a marketing
playground more than a means of ensuring interoperability.
  --  markb

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-ips@ece.cmu.edu [mailto:owner-ips@ece.cmu.edu]On Behalf Of
> julian_satran@il.ibm.com
> Sent: Thursday, June 21, 2001 11:15 AM
> To: ips@ece.cmu.edu
> Subject: profiles - a way to simplify iSCSI
>
>
>
>
> Dear colleagues,
>
> iSCSI keeps getting richer in negotiable parameters/features.
> Although flexibility is a great thing every new negotiable
> parameter/feature get us all worrying about:
>
>    what it will break when used in combination with other
>    parameters/features
>    how are we going to test that all our combinations work as we
> think that
>    they are specified
>    are we understanding/specifying the combinations the same way
> as anybody
>    else
>
>
> I assume that many of you are wondering, as I do, if all this flexibility
> is really worth it's price.
> Would the community not be better served by specifying profiles that are a
> complete-and-invariable combination of features and very small set of
> numerical parameters?
>
> I would start with 2 profiles:
>
>    the minimal profile (only basic features)
>    the maximum profile (all the features)
>
> and then (only if we are strongly convinced it is needed) add a middle
> point.
>
> Please comment,
> Julo
>
>