Re: ips WG Last Call: iSCSI Implementer's Guide

Hi,

On Dec 11, 2006, at 18:34, Mallikarjun C. wrote:
> As far as volunteers for reviewing, we could request the  
> contributors at the end of the document to review.  David may have  
> already reviewed, based on his comments.  Julian Satran had some  
> offline feedback for me on TMF topics.  As the editor of the  
> document, I was sure that each of the topics were discussed in  
> detail (or at least clearly noted) on the list before I included  
> them in the doc.  Hope that gives you some reassurance.

it does, and I trust the WG to organize sufficient reviews.

>> whether it is merely the original text that can be
>> misunderstood or if there is a technical error in the original text.
>> (It already does in some cases.)
>
> Yes, I'd appreciate if you could point out where you think  
> additional clarifications could help.

I think I'd mostly like to see stronger language on "this section  
contains only a clarification of section X of RFC Y" vs. "this  
section replaces section X of RFC Y."

>> OK, so this document not only updates 3720, but also 3721, 3722 and
>> 3723? That needs to be stated in the document header and abstract.
>> (Also, 3721 needs to be normatively cited in this case.)
>
> We could.  My intent was to make it clear that this document  
> prevails whenever a subtle interpretation in future of one of these  
> RFCs differs from what's in this document.  Now that we are nearing  
> the end of the work on this document, we could delete some although  
> I personally am tempted to leave it this way....from what I can  
> think of today though, this doc updates 3720 and 3721, but does not  
> update 3722 and 3723.

I'd argue for being very clear about which sections of which RFCs  
this document clarifies/replaces and which are only cited for  
information. (Where things are being clarified or replaced, those  
RFCs need to be cited normatively.)

> 3721 is not a standards-track RFC and I wasn't sure if it needs to  
> be normatively cited as such.   But I could if that's the right  
> thing to do.

It is, see above. Any RFC (independent of its type) that is being  
clarified or replaced needs to be a normative reference. Please check  
if this introduces and downrefs according to RFC3967 that we need to  
handle.

>> Suggest to find a better title, because implementer's guides don't
>> typically update the base specification in a normative way. (Maybe
>> "iSCSI Corrections and Implementer's Guide" or something like that?)
>
> FIne by me.  How about "iSCSI Corrections, Clarifications,  
> Additions and Implementation Guidance", or is it too long?  If it  
> is, we could try "iSCSI Changes Based on Implementers' Experience"  
> or something like it.

The first is a bit too long, and I don't like the second :-)

"iSCSI Corrections and Clarifications?"

Lars

_______________________________________________
Ips mailing list
[email protected]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ips