Hi Prakash, Thank you for addressing the issues raised in the Gen-ART review. The changes made on issues 2 and 3 are fine, however, one clarification is still needed regarding the first issue. See below (agreed stuff deleted).
> -----Original Message----- > From: Prakash Venkatesen, ERS-HCLTech [mailto:[email protected]] > > Summary: Almost Ready > > Major issues: > > 1) This document will obsolete (when approved) RFC 4544, and add support > for iSCSI protocol evolution according to the consolidated version of > the iSCSI protocol (as per draft-ietf-storm-iscsi-cons) and for the > updates to iSCSI (as per draft-ietf-storm-iscsi-sam) for ProtocolLevel. > There is no indication however in for the operators when an upgrade is > recommended or becomes mandatory, and which version of the protocol is > to be used during the transition, function of the iSCSI versions of the > protocol. > > Prakash> As per rough consensus of STORM group, the new features are > required when implementation supports a value of the iSCSIProtocolLevel > key of 2 or greater. The new draft has this change. > [[DR]] 'the new features are required' means that the MIB support MUST be updated accordingly when the iSCSI updates are deployed? In other words, would an RFC 4544 - based implementation break, or it will continue to work (with functional limitations) until the updated MIB version is introduced? Thanks and Regards, Dan _______________________________________________ Gen-art mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
