Re: iSCSI Markers

[Stephen Bailey <steph@cs.uchicago.edu>]

Glenn,

> The point about the iSCSI charter is interesting, do others feel that
> the segmentation requirements for TUF/PDU Alignment disqualify it from
> consideration for iSCSI?

Just to be pedantically clear, nothing stops the IPS WG from
`considering' (the use of) solutions developed elsewhere (e.g. tsvwg).
What IPS is prohibited from is specifying ITS OWN transport
modifications.

I have understood this to mean (David can probably correct me, and
probably will :^) iSCSI could specify a way to negotiate the use of
TUF, but can't say anything about MAY, or MUSTs of its use.  An RFC
can not normatively reference one lower on the track (experimental <
proposed standard < draft standard < standard).

Extending into the realm of complete guesswork, I imagine that even if
iSCSI couldn't reference TUF AT ALL, it would probably be pretty easy
to produce an IRFC (or another XRFC?) that defined the use of TUF with
iSCSI.  Certainly writing the draft would be easy, I'm less clear how
it might progress to RFC status.

Steph