RE: iscsi : DataPDULength can differ in each direction.

["Sanjeev Bhagat (TRIPACE/Zoetermeer)" <sbhagat@tripace.com>]

All,

Yes, this is a much better solution unless the implementation has some
problem in sending certain sizes of dataPduLength :-), so if initiator has
problem in sending PDUs of 16K which is required dataPDULength of target
then even this procedure will be a failure and it would be better to do LIST
negotiation.


Sanjeev

-----Original Message-----
From: Robert Snively [mailto:rsnively@Brocade.COM]
Sent: Wednesday, October 03, 2001 8:15 PM
To: 'Santosh Rao'; Dev - Platys; Julian Satran
Cc: Sandeep Joshi; ips@ece.cmu.edu
Subject: RE: iscsi : DataPDULength can differ in each direction.


I would have thought that it was indicating the DataPDULength it
was capable of accepting, committing the other port to not
exceeding that value.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Santosh Rao [mailto:santoshr@cup.hp.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, October 03, 2001 10:32 AM
> To: Dev - Platys; Julian Satran
> Cc: Sandeep Joshi; ips@ece.cmu.edu
> Subject: iscsi : DataPDULength can differ in each direction.
> 
> 
> Deva, Julian & All,
> 
> I think we have a more fundamental problem here, that spans beyond the
> issue of which negotiation model should be used for numerical & binary
> key negotiation. This problem needs to be addressed seperately.
> 
> The DataPDULength can and should be allowed to be different in each
> direction. I -> T direction PDUs should be allowed to use a different
> PDU Length than T -> I direction PDUs. 
> 
> Each side should be allowed to specify the DataPDULength it will be
> using and there should be no attempt to negotiate this value. 
>