Re: iSCSI 4.1 & 4.2

["Julian Satran" <Julian_Satran@il.ibm.com>]

Your messages have a certain level of inconsistency.
On one of them you state the last call is meant to get us rid of bugs (you
must have a experienced a large set of last calls state this with such
confidence) and here you ask for a change for something that is certainly
not a bug.

Julo


|---------+---------------------------->
|         |           Paul Koning      |
|         |           <ni1d@arrl.net>  |
|         |           Sent by:         |
|         |           owner-ips@ece.cmu|
|         |           .edu             |
|         |                            |
|         |                            |
|         |           04/29/2002 09:08 |
|         |           PM               |
|         |           Please respond to|
|         |           Paul Koning      |
|         |                            |
|---------+---------------------------->
  >---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
  |                                                                                                               |
  |       To:       cbm@rose.hp.com                                                                               |
  |       cc:       ips@ece.cmu.edu                                                                               |
  |       Subject:  Re: iSCSI 4.1 & 4.2                                                                           |
  |                                                                                                               |
  |                                                                                                               |
  >---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|



Excerpt of message (sent 29 April 2002) by Mallikarjun C.:
> > Specifically, the two cases in which responses are OPTIONAL are:
>
> I would strongly recommend getting rid of this special case.

Yes, that would be good riddance for unnecessary confusion and special
case extra work in implementations.  We've discussed this before;
nothing changed then, even though, as far as I remember, not a single
person spoke up in favor of the current special cases.

       paul