RE: iSCSI: No Framing

[Black_David@emc.com]

I would note that the most likely approach to "Rip the sucker out"
would be to declare framing to be experimental, allowing the framing
text to be moved to a draft that could become an experimental RFC -
it would not be necessary to bit-bucket the text and lose the
work invested in it.

Thanks,
--David

---------------------------------------------------
David L. Black, Senior Technologist
EMC Corporation, 42 South St., Hopkinton, MA  01748
+1 (508) 249-6449 *NEW*      FAX: +1 (508) 497-8500
black_david@emc.com         Cell: +1 (978) 394-7754
---------------------------------------------------


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jim Pinkerton [mailto:jpink@microsoft.com]
> Sent: Thursday, January 31, 2002 6:22 PM
> To: Amir Shalit; Mark S. Edwards; ips@ece.cmu.edu
> Subject: RE: iSCSI: No Framing
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I also agree with this approach. Consensus is still a way out,
> significant work is being done on various fronts to solve some of the
> fundamental issues blocking consensus, and we should not 
> block the iSCSI
> spec waiting for consensus. 
> 
> Rip the sucker out.
> 
> 
> Jim
> 
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Amir Shalit [mailto:amir@astutenetworks.com] 
> Sent: Thursday, January 31, 2002 12:29 PM
> To: Mark S. Edwards; ips@ece.cmu.edu
> Subject: RE: iSCSI: No Framing
> 
> In second thought this is the preferred solution for now. Not
> selecting any type of framing until more progress at the transport
> level which may include running iSCSI on a modified TCP protocol etc.
> 
> Amir
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-ips@ece.cmu.edu [mailto:owner-ips@ece.cmu.edu]On Behalf Of
> Mark S. Edwards
> Sent: Thursday, January 31, 2002 9:49 AM
> To: ips@ece.cmu.edu
> Subject: Re: iSCSI: No Framing
> 
> 
> At 10:46 PM 1/29/2002 -0800, WENDT,JIM (HP-Roseville,ex1) wrote:
> >Perhaps we should discuss the possibility of not
> >specifying any framing mechanism (FIM or COWS) in the
> >first version of iSCSI.
> 
> Nicely put Jim.  My current opinion is that this issue has contributed
> to a
> delay in getting this spec out in to the wild.  This issue MUST be
> closed
> next week and I don't see anything close to a consensus.  My preferred
> approach is to drop this issue now and to look at it at a 
> later date in
> terms of an IPS re-charter when we get to thinking about version 2 of
> iSCSI
> or have some good approaches proposed by the tsvwg or the RDMA WG.
> 
> Mark.
>