Re: [iSCSI]: Key negotiation procedure proposal

[Bill Studenmund <wrstuden@wasabisystems.com>]

On Fri, 24 May 2002, Julian Satran wrote:

> All this thread is based on the assumption that discovery of what other
> side capabilities are is a good thing to have in the protocol.

We must be reading different threads. While I've seen discovery mentioned
and discussed, it's not been a base assumption of what I understood the
thread was about.

> Except for one item the group has decided a long time ago against it.
> The messages consume an inordinate amount of time from all of us - and we
> are looking for things to fix (big or small).

The thread was about the fact people think that login negotiation needs
fixing. It could be the negotiation methods need changing (as in Lubin's
suggestion), or the text needs changing to something more like what John
wrote.

The point though is that the current negotiation description is broken in
the minds of a number of implementors. It sounds like it is not broken in
the minds of a number of the WG members who have been involved for a
while. So from that I conclude the spec hasn't been capturing what is in
the WG's thoughts; the spec needs work.

> If you think that negotiations have to be done some other way that is
> essentially better - please discuss this between yourselves and  submit an
> ID.

I think that would be a reasonable suggestion if we were talking about
making it spiffier & better. But we're complaining that we think it's
broken. Telling us to go off and come back with an ID does not strike me
as a suggestion which will help us converge to an answer.

Take care,

Bill