RE: iscsi: iSCSI Boot -- Informational or Standards track

[Black_David@emc.com]

Title: iscsi: iSCSI Boot -- Informational or Standards track

[WG chair hat on]

 

Folks,

 

Having just had to explain how/why fiddling with formats for

the DHCP Root Path option could cause interoperability problems,

I'm inclined to send have the boot draft go standards track in

order to specify that when the "iscsi:" prefix is used for the

DHCP Root Path option to support booting via iSCSI, then the format

defined in the boot draft MUST be used.  At the moment, I think use

of RFC 2119 imperatives (e.g., MUST) would be limited to Section 4

of the boot draft where this format is defined, but I think the

interoperability issue recently discussed on this list merits

using those imperatives.  Section 1 of the boot draft is about

requirements on booting mechanisms for iSCSI and hence does

not appear to warrant RFC 2119 imperatives.

 

Comments?

--David

---------------------------------------------------
David L. Black, Senior Technologist
EMC Corporation, 42 South St., Hopkinton, MA  01748
+1 (508) 249-6449            FAX: +1 (508) 497-8018
black_david@emc.com       Mobile: +1 (978) 394-7754
---------------------------------------------------

-----Original Message-----
From: Elizabeth Rodriguez [mailto:erodrigu@Brocade.COM]
Sent: Wednesday, September 18, 2002 4:11 PM
To: ips@ece.cmu.edu
Subject: iscsi: iSCSI Boot -- Informational or Standards track

[chair hat off]

All

When reviewing the Boot document last week, one think I overlooked was the fact that the boot draft is currently informational.

In my editorial comments (to the authors only), I listed the fact that it was not written in the language of RFC 2119.
It was pointed out that the draft is informational.  I feel that it probably should be standards track.
It lists minimum requirements for boot, parameters, as well as defaults for optional parameters, and formats for these fields.

This appears to me to be content for a standards track document, not an informational one.

Informational documents are of general interest/information, not necessarily representative of group consensus.
This document seems to be one which is really trying to define parameters and behavior needed for iSCSI Boot,
which means interoperability considerations -- that is a standards track type of document.

What does the rest of the group think?

Thanks,

Elizabeth