Message-ID: <3E5CCAE3.8CCA59D8@cisco.com>
Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2003 08:10:43 -0600
From: Mark Bakke <mbakke@cisco.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: "Zamer, Ahmad" <ahmad.zamer@intel.com>
CC: ips@ece.cmu.edu
Subject: Re: iSCSI Version Info: Version 1 and not 0
References: <07D149538DB6A54B806563FDC2E6E12A02AF99@fmsmsx403.fm.intel.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: owner-ips@ece.cmu.edu
Precedence: bulk

Ahmad-

Please keep in mind that from the IETF point of view, there is no
revision 20.  Drafts don't count as anything, and should not have
earned revision numbers in the first place.  So the RFC is the first
"revision" of iSCSI.  Sometimes these numbering schemes start with
0, sometimes 1; we (by default) chose 0.

--
Mark

"Zamer, Ahmad" wrote:
> 
> We feel that moving back to revision 0 after moving forward to revision 20 is very silly and will cause confusion in the market place. End users are looking for revision 1.0 and not 0, which will be confused with the old 0. This idea is not practical and appears more religious with no good reason.
> 
> I would like to urge all to save us and end users the unnecessary trouble and move forward with revision 1.0 for the RFC document.
> 
> Ahmad Zamer
> Intel Corporation
> SNIA IPS Forum, Chairman - iSCSI Group
> Ahmad.zamer@intel.com
> 
> 

-- 
Mark A. Bakke
Cisco Systems
mbakke@cisco.com
763.398.1054