Skip to main content

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?
===========