RE: iSCSI: invalid key value

["LEMAY,KEVIN (A-Roseville,ex1)" <kevin_lemay@agilent.com>]

This is an area that is open to interpretation in the spec.

My interpretation is:

Any parameter defined in appendix D can only have the values represented in
the appendix. To offer any thing not defined in the spec for these well
defined parameters is a format error. The first option offered is an invalid
one, thus a format error has occurred.

If newer options are added to the spec, then they would be defined for that
revision and see no problem. The values offered must be consistent with the
version number sent in the login request. If new key values are added to a
spec and the initiator supports a range of versions. Only key pairs and
values common to the requests versions should be offered. If this is not
true, then the spec needs to be updated to make it clear that not understood
key values should be passed over and only rejected if no valid option
exists.

The spec is clear on the behavior when a format error occurs. A target
should reject the login and close the connection.

On further review, NotUnderStood is not the correct response. The correct
response would be: "DataDigest=Reject"

Kevin Lemay
Agilent Technologies

-----Original Message-----
From: Mark Bakke [mailto:mbakke@cisco.com]
Sent: Friday, January 25, 2002 8:28 AM
To: kevin_lemay@agilent.com
Cc: ssenum@cisco.com; ips@ece.cmu.edu; Eddy_Quicksall@ivivity.com
Subject: Re: iSCSI: invalid key value


Kevin-

How can this be rejected, if at least one of the values
is understood and supported?  One of the original reasons
to negotiate digest methods, authentication methods, and
such is so newer methods can be added to iSCSI as they
become available.  If I have an initiator that sends:

DataDigest=LatestGreatestDigest,CRC32C,none

and a target that supports CRC32C, it should pick CRC32C,
rather than sending back a notunderstood.  This way, the
initiator can say what it wants, and the target can pick
from the set of methods it supports.

If we let the target reject these, we will degenerate
iSCSI login into a "try this, nope, try that, nope, then
let's try this" sort of negotiation:

I->T DataDigest=LatestGreatest,NextBestThing,CRC32C,none

T->I reject

I->T DataDigest=NextBestThing,CRC32C,none

T->I reject

I->T DataDigest=CRC32C,none

T->I DataDigest=CRC32C

The initiator had to guess at which value the target didn't
like, then keep trying to log in with different sets of
methods until they were reduced to the subset known by the
target.  This would default the purpose of having a relatively
simple negotiation for these things.

Steve is right, the only good way to do this is to accept
the value that's understood, even if it's "none", rejecting
only if none of the values are understood.  If the initiator
didn't want "none", it shouldn't have offered.

BTW, if "CRC32C" is corrupted into "#$C32C", we will have
much worse problems than text key corruption, and trying
to get around it this way will not work.

--
Mark

kevin_lemay@agilent.com wrote:
> 
> I disagree,
> 
> This is an initiator error and the login should be rejected as such.
> NotUnderStood should be returned in the key with the login rejected.
> 
> Kevin Lemay
> Agilent Technologies
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Steve Senum [mailto:ssenum@cisco.com]
> Sent: Friday, January 25, 2002 7:57 AM
> To: ietf-ips
> Cc: Eddy Quicksall
> Subject: Re: iSCSI: invalid key value
> 
> Eddy,
> 
> If someone sends me "DataDigest=#$C32C,none".
> I will respond "DataDigest=none".
> 
> I think responding with "DataDigest=NotUnderstoood"
> or one of the other special responses would be wrong,
> as there is nothing wrong with the key ("DataDigest").
> 
> Since I support "none", and can't tell "#$C32C"
> is really "CRC32C", I believe "DataDigest=none"
> is the only correct response.
> 
> Steve Senum
> 
> -----------------------------------------
> Subject: iSCSI: invalid key value
>    Date: Fri, 25 Jan 2002 10:17:12 -0500
>    From: Eddy Quicksall <Eddy_Quicksall@ivivity.com>
>      To: "ips@ece. cmu. edu (E-mail)" <ips@ece.cmu.edu>
> 
> If a key has a value that is not valid, do you know how I respond?
> 
> 
> 
> For example, DataDigest=#$C32C,none. The valid values are CRC32C,none.
> 
> 
> 
> If I say DataDigest=NotUnderstood, wouldn't that mean the key was not
> understood?
> 
> 
> 
> If I say DataDigest=Reject, that would mean I don't support the key for
the
> current initiator.
> 
> 
> 
> If I say DataDigest=Irrelevant, that would mean the digest is not relevant
> for
> the current negotiation.
> 
> 
> 
> If I say DataDigest=none, that would mean I don't support CRC32C when in
> reality
> I do. It could be that, since there is no digest in login,
> the 1st two letters got changed.
> 
> 
> 
> If I treat it as a protocol error and send a response with status == 0200
or
> 0201, then the initiator does not know why.
> 
> 
> 
> Eddy

-- 
Mark A. Bakke
Cisco Systems
mbakke@cisco.com
763.398.1054