RE: iSCSI extension algorithms (was no subject)

[Bill Studenmund <wrstuden@wasabisystems.com>]

On Thu, 16 Jan 2003 Black_David@emc.com wrote:

> No, because the interop-by-default issue, and all of the text we're
> discussing applies *only* to non-standard extension algorithms.  This
> issue is part of a larger IESG "hot button" on prohibition of mandatory
> vendor-specific extensions, hence getting a vendor-specific extension
> standardized, even if it's a MAY, is enough to get it out from under
> this set of requirements (as there's now a publicly available spec
> on how to implement it).

Ok. And I assume the difference between not worrying about a new non-X
method and worrying about an X# method is that the non-X method would have
to be a standards-track RFC, while X# methods are informational only? Just
making sure I understand it, since I thought you had to have an RFC to get
an X#.

Take care,

Bill