Internet Small Computer System Interface (iSCSI) SCSI Features Update
draft-ietf-storm-iscsi-sam-09
Yes
(Martin Stiemerling)
No Objection
(Adrian Farrel)
(Barry Leiba)
(Benoît Claise)
(Brian Haberman)
(Gonzalo Camarillo)
(Jari Arkko)
(Pete Resnick)
(Richard Barnes)
(Sean Turner)
(Spencer Dawkins)
Note: This ballot was opened for revision 06 and is now closed.
Martin Stiemerling Former IESG member
Yes
Yes
(for -06)
Unknown
Adrian Farrel Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Barry Leiba Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Benoît Claise Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Brian Haberman Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Gonzalo Camarillo Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Jari Arkko Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Joel Jaeggli Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(2013-10-07)
Unknown
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.
Pete Resnick Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Richard Barnes Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Sean Turner Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Spencer Dawkins Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Stephen Farrell Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(2013-10-10)
Unknown
- 4.2: what if something goes wrong in T10 and those changes don't happen?
Stewart Bryant Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(2013-10-08)
Unknown
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? ===========