Internet Small Computer System Interface (iSCSI) SCSI Features Update
draft-ietf-storm-iscsi-sam-09
Note: This ballot was opened for revision 06 and is now closed.
(Martin Stiemerling) Yes
(Jari Arkko) No Objection
(Richard Barnes) No Objection
(Stewart Bryant) No Objection
Comment (2013-10-08)
No email
send info
send info
I find the following text really confusing: This document is not a complete revision of [RFC3720]. Instead, this document is intended as a companion document to [draft-ietf-storm-iscsi- cons-xx]; this document may also be used as a companion document to the combination of [RFC3720] and [RFC5048], although both of those RFCs have been obsolete by [draft-ietf-storm-iscsi-cons- xx]. .. and will be mostly redundant the day draft-ietf-storm-iscsi-cons is published. So given that this draft will wait in the RFC editor's queue until draft-ietf-storm-iscsi-cons is an RFC, may I suggest that just say that it is a companion to draft-ietf-storm-iscsi-cons, and put the text about [RFC3720] and [RFC5048] in the to be deleted editor's note? ===========
(Gonzalo Camarillo) No Objection
(Benoît Claise) No Objection
(Spencer Dawkins) No Objection
(Adrian Farrel) No Objection
(Stephen Farrell) No Objection
Comment (2013-10-10)
No email
send info
send info
- 4.2: what if something goes wrong in T10 and those changes don't happen?
(Brian Haberman) No Objection
(Joel Jaeggli) No Objection
Comment (2013-10-07)
No email
send info
send info
The abstract and the introduction should say what is actually in the document and why this is a companion document (e.g. sections 4-7 are fine. the intro is just ambigious.