Re: iSCSI version number

[julian_satran@il.ibm.com]

Robert,

You have a good point - and for this reason  I intended to keep the version
number to 01 up to the RFC date.
But several folks on the list tought that we are too far from 01 (one even
suggested that we number according to the draft number).

I would like to hear some more voices.

Julo

"Robert D. Russell" <rdr@mars.iol.unh.edu> on 03-07-2001 22:06:00

Please respond to "Robert D. Russell" <rdr@mars.iol.unh.edu>

To:   Julian Satran/Haifa/IBM@IBMIL
cc:   ips@ece.cmu.edu
Subject:  iSCSI version number




Julian:

The 06-91 draft section 2.10.4 on page 57 lists the version number
of the current draft as 0x2, whereas previously it was always 0x1.
Shouldn't it still be 0x1??  After all, there has been no
approved version 0x1, and the 06-91 draft is only a small
incremental improvement over the 06 draft, not a major revision.
Changing to version 0x2 implies a consensus on what 0x1 was,
and there is none (was it the 06 draft, the 06 draft updated
by some (all) of the mailing list e-mails that followed, or what?)
What exactly would it mean to support version 0x1 when the current
(still under revision draft) is 0x2 and there is no consensus on
what version 0x1 was?  And what criteria will you use to decide
when a version number changes and when it doesn't?

I believe these drafts should remain version 0x1 until the "final"
draft in this sequence is approved by IETF.  Otherwise, you will
end up will a bunch of meaningless version numbers that will
be impossible to track.


Bob Russell
InterOperability Lab
University of New Hampshire
rdr@iol.unh.edu
603-862-3774