RE: iSCSI version number

["Ayman Ghanem" <aghanem@cisco.com>]

I am not sure that increasing the version number in draft-07 will provide
this protection. I believe drafts 3 through 6 had the same version number
(0x01) but they don't interoperate. On the other hand, drafts 6 and 7 will
have different version numbers and they very much interoperate. I prefer
keeping the version number at 0x01 until the final draft.

-Ayman


> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-ips@ece.cmu.edu [mailto:owner-ips@ece.cmu.edu]On Behalf Of
> Eddy Quicksall
> Sent: Wednesday, July 04, 2001 2:52 PM
> To: julian_satran@il.ibm.com; ips@ece.cmu.edu
> Cc: Tri.G[tri.g.nguyen@intel.com]
> Subject: Re: iSCSI version number
>
>
> I have mixed emotions ... I agree with Bob in principal.
>
> But, I figured the reason you changed it was actually to distinguish from
> rev 0 ... as I understand it, Intel has already released code
> that conforms
> to rev 0 (but Intel should respond to this).
>
> If we don't increase the version, how do we protect ourselves from running
> into one of the Intel controllers?
>
> Eddy
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: <julian_satran@il.ibm.com>
> To: <ips@ece.cmu.edu>
> Sent: Wednesday, July 04, 2001 1:13 AM
> Subject: Re: iSCSI version number
>
>
> >
> >
> > 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
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>