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
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
(Benoit Claise) No Objection
Spencer Dawkins No Objection
(Adrian Farrel) No Objection
(Stephen Farrell) No Objection
- 4.2: what if something goes wrong in T10 and those changes don't happen?
(Brian Haberman) No Objection
(Joel Jaeggli) No Objection
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.