RE: iSCSI: Negotiation clarifications still needed

[Martins Krikis <mkrikis@yahoo.com>]

--- pat_thaler@agilent.com wrote:

> One could add after the second sentence "It may send
> key-value responses
> and declarations."

I would rather not involve declarations here. It
seems like a good idea to remind that responses
may be sent, but I don't like having to start
checking key types in order to figure out whether
I should send it (or whether I can "nail" the other
side for sending it :-)).

> the sentence:
> "Keys which are subject to declaration rather than
> negotiation are marked declarative."

This isn't entirely true, because MaxRecvPDUDataSize
is subject to declaration but isn't marked declarative
at the moment. 

I actually suggest not involving declarations in
the non-spanning issue. Yes, we may end up sending a 
key or two later than would be possible otherwise,
but the property that all keys (whether declarative
or not) can be treated the same way by far outweighs
this.

> Ideally one would use different labels to
> indicate that a key was subject to declaration and
> that it could be sent in SecurityNegotiation stage.

True, but we're getting off-topic.

P.S. Just because I'm commenting on this does not
     mean that I've changed my mind about my own
     proposal---I still think it is simplest.

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