From: "bill" <bill@strahm.net>
To: "'Zamer, Ahmad'" <ahmad.zamer@intel.com>, <ips@ece.cmu.edu>
Subject: RE: iSCSI Version Info: Version 1 and not 0
Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2003 08:17:27 -0800
Message-ID: <001401c2ddb2$916d93f0$6701a8c0@mobilebill>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
In-Reply-To: <07D149538DB6A54B806563FDC2E6E12A02AF99@fmsmsx403.fm.intel.com>
Importance: Normal
Sender: owner-ips@ece.cmu.edu
Precedence: bulk

I don't agree that a protocol number in a header is what custommers look
for.  I know VERY few custommers with the sophistication to put a packet
sniffer on their network and look at packet headers to determine, yes
there is a 0 there, what do you mean this is version 1 of the
protocol...

Marketing departments will say this is version one of the protocol and
that is what is in the header.  Also we are not putting 1.0 in the
header, we are putting 0, followed by 1, followed by 2 (if the protocol
changes)...

David has said "Ship it with a 0", I agree with him, lets get the RFC
out there so we can have Version 1.0, not wait another 3 months to go
through last call again (and again and again)

Bill

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-ips@ece.cmu.edu [mailto:owner-ips@ece.cmu.edu] On Behalf Of
Zamer, Ahmad
Sent: Wednesday, February 26, 2003 4:48 AM
To: ips@ece.cmu.edu
Subject: RE: iSCSI Version Info: Version 1 and not 0


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