Re: iSCSI: Text request/response spanning - security issue?

[Luben Tuikov <luben@splentec.com>]

Bill Studenmund wrote:
> 
> So here's the suggestion again. We start negotiation with a default value
> for the largest key=value item that can be sent, and the largest set of
> items that can be sent. These defaults are the minimum required that you
> mention. If we want, either side can try to negotiate these values larger.
> If negotiation suceeds, then future steps of negotiation can use the
> larger values. Negotiation can't lower the values below the minimum
> required.

I like this.

Have a maximium default, and if a node needs a larger
value, then let it negotiate it. Futhermore, let the
negotiation be dynamic, that is, if later on
a node needs yet a larger size for an assignment,
let it negotiate it _again_.

Question: I don't see the point in MaxRecvPDULength
be _per_direction_. This is unnecessary and adds extra
complexity. Furthermore since its value is a minimum
of other values, it will be better if it is
only _per_connection_, both directions.

-- 
Luben