RE: iSCSI - started countdown to 11

["Somesh Gupta" <somesh_gupta@silverbacksystems.com>]

Julian,

 

The language in A.1 should be changed from the most recent change. Two things

on the changes -

1. We should have a MAY instead of (the now lower case) should to

indicate the agreement reached - or worst case delete the sentence.

 

2. The last sentence in the first para - newly added & repititive (last

sentence in previous paragraph) -

(in my opinion) tries to get around the agreement. It should either

be deleted, or changed to "some receiver implementation will provide

(significantly) better performance when the sender inserts markers" or

"some receiver implementations may provide degraded performance

to senders which do not insert markers". I prefer that we just not add it.

You have something like that in the previous paragraph anyway.

 

One comment on what was not changed -

1. The last sentence in the para before A.1 - "in certain environment, a

sender ...." - I would suggest be changed to "in certain implementation, ...".

As the behavior is more implementation dependent.

 

We reached a compromise on keeping it in the main draft and making

it a MAY. I hope we can keep that spirit.

 

Somesh

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-ips@ece.cmu.edu [mailto:owner-ips@ece.cmu.edu]On Behalf Of Julian Satran
Sent: Friday, February 22, 2002 8:05 AM
To: ips@ece.cmu.edu
Subject: iSCSI - started countdown to 11

Dear colleagues,

I've put on my site a "working" version of the draft labeled 10-90.
Only the pdf version (with change bars vs. 10) is available.
I'll soon get out also a text version - without a TOC but otherwise usable.

Julo