RE: iSCSI: key negotiation - Unrecognized value?

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

My impression was that "notUnderstood" was used if the key name itself could
not be decoded.

I believe that the correct behavior in the specific case should be:

Originator-> MaxConnections=yes
Responder->  MaxConnections=reject (with a login response of "Initiator
error")

The reason being, is that this key is clearly defined as a numeric field
with specific ranges of values. To send a non-numeric value for this key
would be an initiator error and should be treated as such.

Although processing as "notunderstood" may allow the login to continue, it
will also "cover up" the error allowing bad code to continue live on. Do we
really want to make it easy for people to not even follow the spec?

Kevin Lemay 

-----Original Message-----
From: Luben Tuikov [mailto:luben@splentec.com]
Sent: Wednesday, February 20, 2002 12:17 PM
To: KRUEGER,MARJORIE (HP-Roseville,ex1)
Cc: Ips Reflector (E-mail); Julian Satran
Subject: Re: iSCSI: key negotiation - Unrecognized value?


Marjorie, Julian, all,

When a value doesn't belong to the valid set of
assignable values to a key, but is offered, 
as Marjorie's example, shouldn't the following
take place:

Originator-> MaxConnections=yes
Responder->  MaxConnections=NotUnderstood

Also, isn't ``Reject'' used for a valid, assignable
value, but for which the responder has no resources:

Originator-> MaxConnections=4294967296
Responder->  MaxConnections=Reject

I.e. the responder cannot allow 2^32 connections,
since the OS will not allow it in the first place...
(If your OS allows it, replace the number with 1e3000
above ;-)

?

P.S. The ``NotUnderstood'' reply above would also
be semantically correct.

-- 
Luben Tuikov, Senior Software Engineer, Splentec Ltd.
Bus: +1-905-707-1954x112, 9-5 EST. Fax: +1-905-707-1974.