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

["Julian Satran" <Julian_Satran@il.ibm.com>]

Elizabeth,

I tend to agree. If it stays informational we will end up with a myriad of vendor specific ways of registering boot
data in DHCP for iSCSI.  An item that is not quoted as open  (perhaps it went in too late for the last call) was a request to format in a "generally accepted way"
information about the boot target (e.g., what OS image does it carry?).

Regards,
Julo

Elizabeth Rodriguez <erodrigu@Brocade.COM> Sent by: owner-ips@ece.cmu.edu 18/09/02 23:11

To:        ips@ece.cmu.edu         cc:                 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