SORT BY:

LIST ORDER
THREAD
AUTHOR
SUBJECT


SEARCH

IPS HOME


    [Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

    RE: profiles - a way to simplify iSCSI



    I think this is indicative of the complexity we have in
    the standard. The first order of preference should be
    to reduce the complexity.
    
    Secondly, given the confusing decision process in the
    IETF, it is not certain whether we would meet the following
    two goals that I would have
    
    1. Speedy process.
    2. A large community of vendors and customers agreeing on
    an ideal profile that would be implemented widely.
    (of course, that means that everything else in the spec
    would be relegated to the position where 5 yrs from now
    only few will be able to explain why it is in the spec)
    
    Otherwise profiles are just going to add another dimension
    to negotiate without providing much benefit. Unless you
    say that profiles completely eliminate parameter negotiation
    (then it does add a lot of value).
    
    Somesh
    
    > -----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 10:15 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
    >
    
    
    _________________________________________________________
    Do You Yahoo!?
    Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com
    
    


Home

Last updated: Tue Sep 04 01:04:25 2001
6315 messages in chronological order