Re: [iSCSI]: Key negotiation procedure proposal

[Martins Krikis <mkrikis@yahoo.com>]

--- Bill Studenmund <wrstuden@wasabisystems.com>
wrote:

> > I haven't seen a requirement to send an empty PDU.
> 
> It's not written anywhere. All I can say is that: 1)
> the sample for text
> negotiation (9.10.3) shows empty PDUs, and 2) if we
> don't do it,
> negotiation becomes a REAL mess. :-)

Agreed.

> > Yeah, so I'm afraid it is not a protocol error
> > currently. If it is, I'm happier already.
> > Then, of course, we could say that blank PDUs
> > aren't even necessary, the sending side can just
> > send all PDUs that it had to send.
> 
> I think we should make it an error. :-)

Yes, we should make it an error.

And on a second thought, having the blank PDUs
travelling in the other direction is perhaps
even simpler than allowing nothing to go in
the other direction; at least it does not require
changes to the text in this regard.

So I'm for requiring blank PDUs in this case.

> > NSG=CSG and no T/F flag
> > set (until possibly the last of thos PDUs).
> 
> If no T bit, NSG == reserved = 0.

But does it even matter what NSG is in this case?
Either way is fine with me.

> The last one of a set of PDUs should probably
> reflect the desired state.

Yes.

We may have to change the subject to make this
post noticable. I doubt too many people are
following the current subject at this point.

Martins Krikis, Intel Corp.

Disclaimer: my opinions, not necessarily Intel's.


__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
LAUNCH - Your Yahoo! Music Experience
http://launch.yahoo.com