Well,
given that the initiator should know everything (unless I missed something
below), what good is it other than for vendor specific?
The reason
I’m asking is because it seems silly to support it if it has no use.
Can
someone give me an example of where it is needed (other than for vendor
specific).
Eddy
-----Original
Message-----
From: Julian Satran
[mailto:Julian_Satran@il.ibm.com]
Sent: Friday, February 15, 2002
12:30 PM
To: Eddy Quicksall
Subject: Re: FW: iSCSI: support
value of ?
The same value as Enquiry in SCSI. I
heard no other comment than yours.
Julo
|
|
Eddy
Quicksall <Eddy_Quicksall@ivivity.com>
14-02-02 19:51
|
To: Julian Satran/Haifa/IBM@IBMIL
cc:
Subject: FW: iSCSI: support value of ?
|
I didn't see any responses on this. Is the
"?" syntax of any good other than for vendor specific commands?
Eddy
-----Original
Message-----
From: Eddy Quicksall [mailto:Eddy_Quicksall@ivivity.com]
Sent: Wednesday, February 06, 2002 5:29 PM
To: ips@ece. cmu. edu (E-mail)
Subject: iSCSI: support value of ?
Section 2.2.4 of draft
10 says:
The value
"?" with any key has the meaning of enquiry and should be
answered with the
current value or "NotUnderstood".
What good is this?
You should already know
the answer as a result of login or text negotiations.
Here are the only keys
that can be used in FFP by the initiator:
1)
SendTargets –
we already have defined behavior for that key and those get the information
anyway
2)
TargetName –
that is IO by initiator so he can't send that key anyway. Also, he has to
already know the target.
3)
TargetAlias –
"this name MUST be communicated to the initiator during a
Login". So that is already known.
4)
InitiatorAlias
– the initiator should already know his alias
5)
TargetAddress
– the target is the only one that can send this in a response
6)
MaxRecvPDULength
– this should be known from the negotiations
7)
Vendor
Specific – Could this be the reason? If so, lets say that so we don't have to
add a lot of silly code. Or, lets say that the response to "?" can be
"Reject" meaning that we don't support that syntax (currently, the
definition of the "Reject value" does not fit this).
Eddy
