SORT BY:

LIST ORDER
THREAD
AUTHOR
SUBJECT


SEARCH

IPS HOME


    [Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

    Re: iSCSI "bad practice"



    Sure I can - I wanted to point out that such an answer will be harder to
    read (infer) on  a trace and I can change it to:
    
       For numerical (and binary) negotiations, the responding party SHOULD
       respond with the required key but the offering party MUST accept no
       answer as equivalent to answering with the default value.
    
     Thanks,
     Julo
    
    "Eddy Quicksall" <eddy_quicksall@ivivity.com> on 27-07-2001 16:37:27
    
    Please respond to eddy_quicksall@ivivity.com
    
    To:   Julian Satran/Haifa/IBM@IBMIL, ips@ece.cmu.edu
    cc:
    Subject:  iSCSI "bad practice"
    
    
    
    
    I don't think statements like "However not responding is considered bad
    practice and is  discouraged." should be in a spec.
    
    The problem with this kind of statement is "well, what do I do if someone
    does that?". There can be all sorts of interpretations. If "not responding"
    is allowed, then so be it. If you don't want someone to "not respond", then
    say so.
    
    Can we please remove all of those ambiguous statements from the spec?
    
    Eddy_Quicksall@iVivity.com
    
    
    
    
    


Home

Last updated: Tue Sep 04 01:04:11 2001
6315 messages in chronological order