RE: iSCSI: Negotiation clarifications still needed

[Martins Krikis <mkrikis@yahoo.com>]

--- "THALER,PAT (A-Roseville,ex1)"
<pat_thaler@agilent.com> wrote:

> The sender cannot do exactly what you describe. It
> cannot prepare a string of 
> key-value pairs then chop them into PDUs to send
> because the response to 
> the first PDUs may contain offers of keys that were
> not sent in the first PDU. 

This is where my scheme has an advantage. The
sender does not have to worry about how much fits
in each PDU. It knows that it will be getting
no response text until it is done all its sending.

Kind of like a speaker knowing that nobody will
interrupt it until it has finished the thought.

> Because of the request-response nature of
> negotiation plus the 
> flexibility of allowing either side to make an offer
> plus the simplification 
> that a negotiation is at most one offer and one
> response, the negotiation
> has to be PDU boundary aware.

With a requirement for empty PDUs it doesn't.
The negotiation is completely PDU boundary agnostic.

I know that your scheme works, Pat. It also more
efficiently uses the bandwitch and possibly converges
faster in the rare case when anything needs to be
split at all. However, my scheme is simpler and
allows simpler implementations without any harmful
effects on the general case when everything does fit.

Martins Krikis, Intel Corp.

Disclaimer: these opinions are mine and may not be
            those of my employer



__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! - Official partner of 2002 FIFA World Cup
http://fifaworldcup.yahoo.com