RE: iSCSI: version number

[wrstuden@wasabisystems.com]

On Fri, 21 Feb 2003 Black_David@emc.com wrote:

> > PEOPLE have been asking for this change all along and they where told
> > that the IETF rules do not allow drafts to carry any version number beyond
> 0.
>
> That's not quite true - we probably should have changed the number when
> the draft made it through WG Last Call.  Mea culpa in part, but we are
> where we are.
>
> > That sounds to me like the version 1 is related to document status change.
> > It will help also distinguish implementations that support the RFC rather
> > than the draft.
>
> The problem I'm concerned about is that I see people shipping
> implementations
> that conform to the "approved" standard (draft -20 + the two RFC Editor
> notes),
> and changing the version number takes those implementations out of
> conformance
> solely to change the version number for an RFC that is otherwise
> functionally identical.

From talking with some IETFrs that have been at this for a while, the
general concensus is that we don't HAVE to do change the version number;
the version number SHOULD change when the wire format changes. Since going
from draft 20 to the RFC didn't change the wire format, there is no
compelling reason to do it.

Now we COULD change the version number, but I really don't see any reason
to, since we didn't change the wire format. So let's please leave it
alone.

Take care,

Bill