RE: iSCSI: version number

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

I think we have spent enough bits on
this. I heard you all clear and it will stay 0. Julo

"Sankar, Ranga" <Ranga.Sankar@netapp.com>
Sent by: owner-ips@ece.cmu.edu

22/02/03 15:25

To	"Andre Hedrick" <andre@linux-ide.org>, Julian Satran/Haifa/IBM@IBMIL
cc	"Wysochanski, David" <David.Wysochanski@netapp.com>, <ips@ece.cmu.edu>, <owner-ips@ece.cmu.edu>, "dl-iscsi-eng" <dl-iscsi-eng@netapp.com>
Subject	RE: iSCSI: version number

The RFC to be, still has not decided to go with version
1.
Also i believe that the IETF does not have a rule that requires 
the version to start with 1 after ratification. It is left
to the working group to decide on the version number.

Having gone thru the Interoperability issues in  the Plugfests,
i feel we should not change the version without a strong reason.

-ranga


-----Original Message-----
From: Andre Hedrick [mailto:andre@linux-ide.org]
Sent: Saturday, February 22, 2003 2:39 AM
To: Julian Satran
Cc: Sankar, Ranga; Wysochanski, David; ips@ece.cmu.edu;
owner-ips@ece.cmu.edu
Subject: Re: iSCSI: version number



Those who are locked into version 0 will have issues with those who are
properly reporting and following the RFC, to be.  Those who chose
not to
support dynamic loading of the version as a config option, fell short of
seeing the history here in IPS-Refecltor.  Those who are capable of
adjusting this reporting will be capable of forward and backwards
compatability.

Also, what is IETF rules for version numbers and the requirements imposed
upon formal ratification?

If those rules require a version number > 0, then there is no choice
but
to follow and comply with the rules according to the supervisory body that
initiated the original ad-hoc and transformed to a formal WG.

Just my nickle of noise.


Andre Hedrick
LAD Storage Consulting Group

On Fri, 21 Feb 2003, Julian Satran wrote:

> There is no strong reason - it is only that all the people that have
asked 
> for this vocally in the past are now silent.
> And if they keep being silent then it will stay at 0.
> 
> Julo
> 
> 
> 
> "Sankar, Ranga" <Ranga.Sankar@netapp.com> 
> Sent by: owner-ips@ece.cmu.edu
> 21/02/03 00:22
> 
> To
> <ips@ece.cmu.edu>
> cc
> Julian Satran/Haifa/IBM@IBMIL, "Wysochanski, David" 
> <David.Wysochanski@netapp.com>
> Subject
> Re: iSCSI: version number
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>   
> Could we leave the version number as 0? Is there a strong reason to
make 
> this 1? 
> -ranga 
> "Robert D. Russell" <rdr@io.iol.unh.edu> 
> 20/02/03 16:59 
>  To Julian Satran/Haifa/IBM@IBMIL 
> cc ips@ece.cmu.edu 
> Subject iSCSI: version number 
>  
>   
> 
> 
> Julian: 
> Now that draft 20 has been accepted as an IETF standard, 
> shouldn't the version number in section 10.12.4 be changed 
> to 0x01? 
> Thanks 
> Bob Russell 
> InterOperability Lab 
> University of New Hampshire 
> rdr@iol.unh.edu 
> 603-862-3774 
>