Subject: iSCSI: Framing Requirements Text

From: [email-masked]
Date: Mon, 25 Feb 2002 13:44:20 -0500

This issue appears to have been addressed in 10-92, but it's
important enough to comment on here.  Somesh wrote and Julian
responded:

> 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. 
> 
> +++ the text reflects the currecnt agreement - the lower case should
> indicates a standard MAY with the performance warning that appears
> elswhere.  I could add the MAY but that would make the text even less
> readable 
> +++

Use of lower case must/should/may to imply upper case (i.e., RFC 2119)
MUST/SHOULD/MAY requirements in any fashion is an invitation to confusion.
A lower case "should" may not contain any RFC 2119 implication, depending
on how it's used.  The best bet for clarity is to use the RFC 2119 terms
for their intended purpose, as the 10-92 text does:

   If a receiver indicates that it desires a marker,
   the sender MAY agree (during negotiation) and provide the marker at
   the desired interval.

This conveys the requirement level clearly.

Also, for those who need it, Julian's web site where the 10-92 draft can
be found is at http://www.haifa.il.ibm.com/satran/ips/  To make it easier
for those who may have joined the list recently, any post announcing the
availability of something on Julian's web site should include this link.

Thanks,
--David

---------------------------------------------------
David L. Black, Senior Technologist
EMC Corporation, 42 South St., Hopkinton, MA  01748
+1 (508) 249-6449 *NEW*      FAX: +1 (508) 497-8500
[email-masked]         Cell: +1 (978) 394-7754
---------------------------------------------------