[storm] Consolidated draft

"Knight, Frederick" <Frederick.Knight@netapp.com> Tue, 16 August 2011 04:22 UTC

Return-Path: <Frederick.Knight@netapp.com>
X-Original-To: storm@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: storm@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5718F21F8B22 for <storm@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 15 Aug 2011 21:22:03 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -10.598
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.598 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Q4aZqX2GXBCt for <storm@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 15 Aug 2011 21:22:01 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mx2.netapp.com (mx2.netapp.com []) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B57F621F8B03 for <storm@ietf.org>; Mon, 15 Aug 2011 21:22:01 -0700 (PDT)
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos; i="4.67,378,1309762800"; d="scan'208,217"; a="571071519"
Received: from smtp2.corp.netapp.com ([]) by mx2-out.netapp.com with ESMTP; 15 Aug 2011 21:22:48 -0700
Received: from sacrsexc2-prd.hq.netapp.com (sacrsexc2-prd.hq.netapp.com []) by smtp2.corp.netapp.com (8.13.1/8.13.1/NTAP-1.6) with ESMTP id p7G4MlTi020311 for <storm@ietf.org>; Mon, 15 Aug 2011 21:22:48 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from rtprsexc2-prd.hq.netapp.com ([]) by sacrsexc2-prd.hq.netapp.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959); Mon, 15 Aug 2011 21:22:47 -0700
Received: from RTPMVEXC1-PRD.hq.netapp.com ([]) by rtprsexc2-prd.hq.netapp.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959); Tue, 16 Aug 2011 00:22:46 -0400
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5
x-cr-hashedpuzzle: AkMd Awsu CGOG CIiO CxQn DxN9 FZJf Fulb GGbn IZwG ImnY Irtj J20O LW0n LfL6 LrPj; 1; cwB0AG8AcgBtAEAAaQBlAHQAZgAuAG8AcgBnAA==; Sosha1_v1; 7; {A1066528-30C8-42AC-95BD-0F9E1D4EC702}; ZgByAGUAZABlAHIAaQBjAGsALgBrAG4AaQBnAGgAdABAAG4AZQB0AGEAcABwAC4AYwBvAG0A; Tue, 16 Aug 2011 04:16:49 GMT; QwBvAG4AcwBvAGwAaQBkAGEAdABlAGQAIABkAHIAYQBmAHQA
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01CC5BCC.26469292"
x-cr-puzzleid: {A1066528-30C8-42AC-95BD-0F9E1D4EC702}
Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
Date: Tue, 16 Aug 2011 00:22:46 -0400
Message-ID: <AC32D7C72530234288643DD5F1435D5310C4A2E9@RTPMVEXC1-PRD.hq.netapp.com>
Thread-Topic: Consolidated draft
Thread-Index: Acxbnc1bmsgg0WazTlG/tEgLbqmqFQ==
From: "Knight, Frederick" <Frederick.Knight@netapp.com>
To: <storm@ietf.org>
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 16 Aug 2011 04:22:46.0570 (UTC) FILETIME=[2695A8A0:01CC5BCC]
Subject: [storm] Consolidated draft
X-BeenThere: storm@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Storage Maintenance WG <storm.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/storm>, <mailto:storm-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/storm>
List-Post: <mailto:storm@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:storm-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/storm>, <mailto:storm-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 16 Aug 2011 04:22:03 -0000

Here are a couple of minor comments on the consolidated draft:
1)      an observation in the abstract is the sentence:
The iSCSI protocol aims to be fully compliant with
  the standardized SCSI Architecture Model (SAM).
In fact, "SAM" is incorrect here.  SAM is not a generic name; SAM is the
name of the very first version of the SCSI Architecture Model.  In fact,
the original iSCSI was based on SAM-2, not SAM.  Maybe it should leave
out the use of a meaningful SCSI acronym (SAM) and just say:
The iSCSI protocol aims to be fully compliant with the standardized SCSI
2)      Last paragraph of abstract:
This document consolidates RFCs 3720, 3980, 4850 and 5048 into a
  single document and makes additional updates to the consolidated
  specification. This document also updates RFC 3721. The text in
  this document thus supersedes the text in RFCs 3720, 3721, 3980,
  4850 and 5048 whenever there is such a question.
The first sentence does not list 3721 as part of the consolidation, but
the last sentence says this document supersedes 3721.  It seems that in
order to supersede 3721, it must consolidate 3721 into this single
document.  The middle sentence ("This document also updates RFC3721.")
adds confusion.  Is it that just some of 3721 is consolidated, and other
parts are not consolidated, so in fact, only some of 3721 is superseded?
The last sentence is also missing something ... "The text in this
document supersedes the text in ... whenever there is such a question."
- what question?  Does this mean whenever there is a conflict?; or
whenever they disagree?; or whenever there is a difference?