Internet Small Computer System Interface (iSCSI) Corrections and Clarifications
RFC 5048

Note: This ballot was opened for revision 09 and is now closed.

Lars Eggert Yes

(Magnus Westerlund; former steering group member) Yes

Yes ()
No email
send info

(Chris Newman; former steering group member) (was Discuss) No Objection

No Objection ()
No email
send info

(Cullen Jennings; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection ( for -** No value found for 'p.get_dochistory.rev' **)
No email
send info

(Dan Romascanu; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection ( for -** No value found for 'p.get_dochistory.rev' **)
No email
send info

(Jari Arkko; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection ( for -** No value found for 'p.get_dochistory.rev' **)
No email
send info

(Jon Peterson; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection ( for -** No value found for 'p.get_dochistory.rev' **)
No email
send info

(Lisa Dusseault; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection ( for -** No value found for 'p.get_dochistory.rev' **)
No email
send info

(Mark Townsley; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection ( for -** No value found for 'p.get_dochistory.rev' **)
No email
send info

(Ron Bonica; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection ( for -** No value found for 'p.get_dochistory.rev' **)
No email
send info

(Ross Callon; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection ( for -** No value found for 'p.get_dochistory.rev' **)
No email
send info

(Russ Housley; former steering group member) (was Discuss) No Objection

No Objection (2007-06-06)
No email
send info
  From Gen-ART Review by From: Suresh Krishnan

  Summary: This draft is ready for publication, but I have some
  suggestions.

  Comments: Overall the draft is well written and has a really well
  written IANA Considerations section.

  Minor
  =====

  * Section 4.1.2 c

  "c. Should receive the TMF Response concluding all the tasks in
      the set of affected tasks. "

  I am not sure of the intent of the sentence, but I believe it to be
  normative. So I think the "Should" needs to be replaced with a SHOULD.

  * It is really unclear from the draft how to differentiate between
  the following types of information
    - Updates to RFC3720
    - New behavior on top of RFC3720
    - Clarifications and implementation advice
  since they are intermingled throughout the document.

  * For section 11.2 iSCSI Opcodes, the document mentions the following

    "Fields to record in the registry: Assigned value, Who can
    originate (Initiator or Target), Operation Name and its
    associated RFC reference"

  Since the op codes can also be assigned using the Expert Review
  process, it should probably mention that the RFC reference is 
  optional.

  Editorial
  =========

  * RFC2119 occurs twice in the references. Once as normative and once
  as informative

(Sam Hartman; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection ( for -** No value found for 'p.get_dochistory.rev' **)
No email
send info

(Tim Polk; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection ( for -** No value found for 'p.get_dochistory.rev' **)
No email
send info