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

    Re: iSCSI: not offering a key

    Excerpt of message (sent 25 January 2002) by Eddy Quicksall:
    > The spec says:
    > Not offering a key for negotiation is not 
    > equivalent to offering the current (or default) value.
    > Does anyone know why?
    > Maybe I don't understand the sentence. I interpret it to mean
    > that if the default value is acceptable to me then not
    > offering it is somehow different than the default ... and that
    > confuses me (well, actually it makes me wonder if the sentence
    > is trying to say something else).
    1. The sentence
    ``Not offering a key for negotiation is not 
      equivalent to offering the current (or default) value.''
    means that one cannot assume the current (or default)
    value for a key which has not been offered for
    negotiation (negotiated).
    I.e. you cannot assume as to the value of a key, not
    the default, not the current. You always have to
    negotiate it... It may turn out that both T and I
    use the default, nevertheless they have to negotiate it.
    This is what the sentence means from a logical point of view.
    But what is meant by it the iSCSI draft, maybe someone else
    will confirm.
    I don't think that there is a better way to put this.
    Whether that is what is meant in the draft... is another
    2. Previous sentence in the draft:
    ``All negotiations are stateless (i.e., the result MUST be 
      based only on newly exchanged values).''
    means that no keys are inherited or persistent...
    _But_ the draft needs to specify a scope (connection,
    session, etc) for the non-persistence of negotiations of
    keys' values (just as persistence is explicitly specified
    in terms of scopes in formal definitions).
    There is probably a better way to put this, probably using
    words like ``scope'', ``persistence'', ``session'',
    ``connection'', etc., which will eliminate the ``(i.e. ...)''.


Last updated: Sat Jan 26 04:17:57 2002
8498 messages in chronological order