Subject: iSCSI - started countdown to 11

From: "Julian Satran" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 22 Feb 2002 18:05:13 +0200

Dear colleagues,

I've put on my site a "working" version of the draft labeled 10-90.
Only the pdf version (with change bars vs. 10) is available.
I'll soon get out also a text version - without a TOC but otherwise 
usable.

Julo

---

From: "Somesh Gupta" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 22 Feb 2002 12:10:57 -0800

Julian,

The language in A.1 should be changed from the most recent change. Two
things
on the changes -
1. We should have a MAY instead of (the now lower case) should to
indicate the agreement reached - or worst case delete the sentence.

2. The last sentence in the first para - newly added & repititive (last
sentence in previous paragraph) -
(in my opinion) tries to get around the agreement. It should either
be deleted, or changed to "some receiver implementation will provide
(significantly) better performance when the sender inserts markers" or
"some receiver implementations may provide degraded performance
to senders which do not insert markers". I prefer that we just not add it.
You have something like that in the previous paragraph anyway.

One comment on what was not changed -
1. The last sentence in the para before A.1 - "in certain environment, a
sender ...." - I would suggest be changed to "in certain implementation,
...".
As the behavior is more implementation dependent.

We reached a compromise on keeping it in the main draft and making
it a MAY. I hope we can keep that spirit.

Somesh
  -----Original Message-----
  From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]On Behalf Of
Julian Satran
  Sent: Friday, February 22, 2002 8:05 AM
  To: [email-masked]
  Subject: iSCSI - started countdown to 11

  Dear colleagues,

  Julo