SORT BY:

LIST ORDER
THREAD
AUTHOR
SUBJECT


SEARCH

IPS HOME


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

    Re: [iSCSI]: Key negotiation procedure proposal



    Bill Studenmund wrote:
    > 
    > That statement doesn't make sense.
    
    I didn't see that you meant to send the 
    Responder's offer along with the responder's Reject.
    I see what you mean.
     
    > I'm suggesting that we not wait for a future packet pair to send the value
    > we would be happy with. As you so strongly pointed out, we can have
    > multiple key=value tuples, why not repeat this key twice, once to indicate
    > reject, and once to indicate our value. Thus the originator gets all the
    > info it needs very quickly, we save a packet pair, and we don't need to
    > add more state.
    
    This certianly sounds reasonable. I'm happy with that.
    So to make it more formal, the second implied rule should
    read:
    
    If a Responder replies with Reject, it SHOULD sent its value
    of that key on the same reply to the Originator.
    
    To recap:
    ---------------------
    Simple implementations:
    
    Simple implementations SHOULD close the connection right
    after Reject has been communicated. This ensures that the
    reason for closing has been communicated to the peer.
    
    Regular implementations:
    
    Core rule: A negotiation of a key=value pair is
    complete/finished when both the Originator and Responder
    have sent their values (non-reserved keywords).
    
    The core rule implies the the following:
    
    If a Responder replies with Reject, then the Originator
    SHOULD NOT renegotiate the rejected key.
    
    If a Responder replies with Reject, it SHOULD send its value
    of that key in the same reply PDU to the Originator after the
    key=Reject pair.
    
    If an Originator finds the response to an offered key=value
    pair to be unacceptable, it SHOULD send Reject and close the
    connection.
    ------------------
    
    Well people, what do you think?
    
    Bill, thanks for your analysis and support.
    
    -- 
    Luben
    


Home

Last updated: Thu May 23 15:18:32 2002
10260 messages in chronological order