RE: iSCSI: version number

[Andre Hedrick <andre@linux-ide.org>]

Bill:

Congrats!  You have pointed to a justified reason to never change the
version from 0.  Since changing the "wire format" seems unrealistic, and
this denotes the protocol, it looks like version 0 is glued and tatoo'd.

Thanks,

Andre Hedrick
LAD Storage Consulting Group


On Mon, 24 Feb 2003 wrstuden@wasabisystems.com wrote:

> On Fri, 21 Feb 2003 Black_David@emc.com wrote:
> 
> > > PEOPLE have been asking for this change all along and they where told
> > > that the IETF rules do not allow drafts to carry any version number beyond
> > 0.
> >
> > That's not quite true - we probably should have changed the number when
> > the draft made it through WG Last Call.  Mea culpa in part, but we are
> > where we are.
> >
> > > That sounds to me like the version 1 is related to document status change.
> > > It will help also distinguish implementations that support the RFC rather
> > > than the draft.
> >
> > The problem I'm concerned about is that I see people shipping
> > implementations
> > that conform to the "approved" standard (draft -20 + the two RFC Editor
> > notes),
> > and changing the version number takes those implementations out of
> > conformance
> > solely to change the version number for an RFC that is otherwise
> > functionally identical.
> 
> >From talking with some IETFrs that have been at this for a while, the
> general concensus is that we don't HAVE to do change the version number;
> the version number SHOULD change when the wire format changes. Since going
> from draft 20 to the RFC didn't change the wire format, there is no
> compelling reason to do it.
> 
> Now we COULD change the version number, but I really don't see any reason
> to, since we didn't change the wire format. So let's please leave it
> alone.
> 
> Take care,
> 
> Bill
>