Re: iSCSI: Some proposed vendor-specific (X-) keys

[David Robinson <David.Robinson@sun.com>]

Bill Studenmund wrote:

> On Mon, 10 Jun 2002, Paul Koning wrote:
>>Excerpt of message (sent 10 June 2002) by Bill Studenmund:
>>
>>>I expect iSCSI 2 (or 1.1) will be on the order of a year or more out from
>>>iSCSI. What does everyone else think?
>>>
>>If the spec is as good as it should be, that's a fine time frame.  But
>>if significant interop issues are found soon after RFC, then 1.1 will
>>have to happen a whole lot sooner.
>>
> 
> What happens if we're somewhere inbetween? Or what if we find an issue
> where 80% of the implementations all chose the same way?
> 
> I'm trying to scope out the shades of gray we might run into.


As a reminder about the IETF standards process, RFC2026. The IPS
working group is driving towards "Proposed Standard" which
by definition: "Implementors should treat Proposed Standards as
immature specifications." The next step is "Draft Standard"
where there is expectation that changes will be made between
Proposed and Draft.  "A Draft Standard is normally considered
to be a final specification..."

To move from Proposed to Draft is where two independant implementations
are required and where the "80%" implementation problems are caught
and fixed.

The RFC we are driving towards is just the first step in a long
path, there will be plenty of opportunities to fix "bugs" that
are found we real implementations are built. Thus vendor specific
keys are not needed, what we have today is not going to be
the "Internet Standard."

	-David