Internet Small Computer System Interface (iSCSI) SCSI Features Update

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
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-

.. 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
- 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
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.

Barry Leiba No Objection

(Pete Resnick) No Objection

(Sean Turner) No Objection