RE: profiles - a way to simplify iSCSI

[Bernard Aboba <aboba@internaut.com>]

> You are still missing my point. Profiles are not proposed "in addition" to
> what we have but instead of.
> They are not meant to remove features that where introduced for a
> legitimate reason or another but rather to limit
> the variability in implementations and testing.
> 

The best way to limit the variability in implementations and testing is
not to include so many "features" in the first place. It's often tempting
to resolve potential conflicts by turning out a "kitchen sink spec" but
that's almost always a worse choice than choosing between one of the
alternatives. Similarly, options are a losing proposition because you have
to implement them because someone else might, but you can't guarantee
they'll be used. So if something doesn't make it into what would have been
the "profile" I'd question why it can't be thrown out altogether. 

As part of the Draft Standards application, "features" not proven to
interoperate with independent implementations have to be removed. So if a
"feature" was inserted merely to keep the peace, has problematic
interoperability or is not on the slate to be independently implemented,
we might as well toss it out. 

"There's never a better time to weed a garden than RIGHT NOW."