Return-Path: <owner-ips@ece.cmu.edu>
X-Sieve: cmu-sieve 2.0
Return-Path: <owner-ips@ece.cmu.edu>
Received: (from majordom@localhost)
	by ece.cmu.edu (8.11.0/8.10.2) id h1L5UYu24267
	for ips-outgoing; Fri, 21 Feb 2003 00:30:34 -0500 (EST)
X-Authentication-Warning: ece.cmu.edu: majordom set sender to owner-ips@ece.cmu.edu using -f
Received: from d12lmsgate.de.ibm.com (d12lmsgate.de.ibm.com [194.196.100.234])
	by ece.cmu.edu (8.11.0/8.10.2) with ESMTP id h1L5UVW24262;
	Fri, 21 Feb 2003 00:30:31 -0500 (EST)
Received: from d12relay02.de.ibm.com (d12relay02.de.ibm.com [9.165.215.23])
	by d12lmsgate.de.ibm.com (8.12.3/8.12.3) with ESMTP id h1L5UOtY056700;
	Fri, 21 Feb 2003 06:30:24 +0100
Received: from d10ml001.telaviv.ibm.com (d10ml001.telaviv.ibm.com [9.148.216.55])
	by d12relay02.de.ibm.com (8.12.3/NCO/VER6.5) with ESMTP id h1L5UOXC259326;
	Fri, 21 Feb 2003 06:30:24 +0100
In-Reply-To: <277DD60FB639D511AC0400B0D068B71E0564C8FD@corpmx14.us.dg.com>
To: Black_David@emc.com
Cc: ips@ece.cmu.edu, owner-ips@ece.cmu.edu
Subject: RE: iSCSI: version number
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 6.0.1 February 07, 2003
From: "Julian Satran" <Julian_Satran@il.ibm.com>
Message-ID: <OF3106D72E.140ACC35-ONC2256CD4.001D8F4A-C2256CD4.001E3ED9@telaviv.ibm.com>
Date: Fri, 21 Feb 2003 07:30:20 +0200
X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on D10ML001/10/M/IBM(Release 5.0.9a |January 7, 2002) at
 21/02/2003 07:30:23,
	Serialize complete at 21/02/2003 07:30:23
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="=_alternative 001E0F96C2256CD4_="
Sender: owner-ips@ece.cmu.edu
Precedence: bulk

This is a multipart message in MIME format.
--=_alternative 001E0F96C2256CD4_=
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"

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 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.

Julo



Black_David@emc.com 
Sent by: owner-ips@ece.cmu.edu
21/02/03 00:34

To
Julian Satran/Haifa/IBM@IBMIL, rdr@io.iol.unh.edu
cc
ips@ece.cmu.edu
Subject
RE: iSCSI: version number






Let me just check whether people want this done.  Are implementations
going to be able to cope with a version number change from 0 to 1
some weeks or months from now?  Version number changes usually aren't
done to reflect changes in document status - rather they generally
reflect some sort of functional change.

Thanks,
--David
----------------------------------------------------
David L. Black, Senior Technologist
EMC Corporation, 176 South St., Hopkinton, MA  01748
+1 (508) 293-7953             FAX: +1 (508) 293-7786
black_david@emc.com        Mobile: +1 (978) 394-7754
----------------------------------------------------

-----Original Message-----
From: Julian Satran [mailto:Julian_Satran@il.ibm.com]
Sent: Thursday, February 20, 2003 11:25 AM
To: Robert D. Russell
Cc: ips@ece.cmu.edu
Subject: Re: iSCSI: version number



I will do it during the last 48h. Thanks, Julo 


"Robert D. Russell" <rdr@io.iol.unh.edu> 
20/02/03 16:59 ToJulian Satran/Haifa/IBM@IBMIL 
ccips@ece.cmu.edu 
SubjectiSCSI: 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


--=_alternative 001E0F96C2256CD4_=
Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII"


<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">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.</font>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">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.</font>
<br>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">Julo</font>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<table width=100%>
<tr valign=top>
<td width=40%><font size=1 face="sans-serif"><b>Black_David@emc.com</b>
</font>
<br><font size=1 face="sans-serif">Sent by: owner-ips@ece.cmu.edu</font>
<p><font size=1 face="sans-serif">21/02/03 00:34</font>
<td width=59%>
<table width=100%>
<tr>
<td>
<div align=right><font size=1 face="sans-serif">To</font></div>
<td valign=top><font size=1 face="sans-serif">Julian Satran/Haifa/IBM@IBMIL,
rdr@io.iol.unh.edu</font>
<tr>
<td>
<div align=right><font size=1 face="sans-serif">cc</font></div>
<td valign=top><font size=1 face="sans-serif">ips@ece.cmu.edu</font>
<tr>
<td>
<div align=right><font size=1 face="sans-serif">Subject</font></div>
<td valign=top><font size=1 face="sans-serif">RE: iSCSI: version number</font></table>
<br>
<table>
<tr valign=top>
<td>
<td></table>
<br></table>
<br>
<br>
<br><font size=2><tt>Let me just check whether people want this done. &nbsp;Are
implementations<br>
going to be able to cope with a version number change from 0 to 1<br>
some weeks or months from now? &nbsp;Version number changes usually aren't<br>
done to reflect changes in document status - rather they generally<br>
reflect some sort of functional change.<br>
<br>
Thanks,<br>
--David<br>
----------------------------------------------------<br>
David L. Black, Senior Technologist<br>
EMC Corporation, 176 South St., Hopkinton, MA &nbsp;01748<br>
+1 (508) 293-7953 &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; FAX: +1 (508)
293-7786<br>
black_david@emc.com &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;Mobile: +1 (978) 394-7754<br>
----------------------------------------------------<br>
<br>
-----Original Message-----<br>
From: Julian Satran [mailto:Julian_Satran@il.ibm.com]<br>
Sent: Thursday, February 20, 2003 11:25 AM<br>
To: Robert D. Russell<br>
Cc: ips@ece.cmu.edu<br>
Subject: Re: iSCSI: version number<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
I will do it during the last 48h. Thanks, Julo <br>
<br>
<br>
&quot;Robert D. Russell&quot; &lt;rdr@io.iol.unh.edu&gt; <br>
20/02/03 16:59 ToJulian Satran/Haifa/IBM@IBMIL <br>
ccips@ece.cmu.edu <br>
SubjectiSCSI: version number<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
Julian:<br>
<br>
Now that draft 20 has been accepted as an IETF standard,<br>
shouldn't the version number in section 10.12.4 be changed<br>
to 0x01?<br>
<br>
Thanks<br>
<br>
Bob Russell<br>
InterOperability Lab<br>
University of New Hampshire<br>
rdr@iol.unh.edu<br>
603-862-3774<br>
</tt></font>
<br>
--=_alternative 001E0F96C2256CD4_=--