Re: iSCSI Markers

[Mark Bakke <mbakke@cisco.com>]

Steph-

I think that your approach of writing a separate RFC would be the
best way to document any framing method for iSCSI (including the
use of markers).  It's clean, separable, and doesn't get in the
way of getting the protocol itself done, which seems to be the most
important thing right now.  Best of all, if one method doesn't work
or is not adopted, it doesn't clutter the iSCSI specification for
all time.

--
Mark

Stephen Bailey wrote:
> 
> 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

-- 
Mark A. Bakke
Cisco Systems
mbakke@cisco.com
763.398.1054