SORT BY:

LIST ORDER
THREAD
AUTHOR
SUBJECT


SEARCH

IPS HOME


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

    Re: iSCSI: keys/parameter dependence



    --- Mike Donohoe <Mike.Donohoe@quantum.com> wrote:
    
    > From 12-95 4.3.3 pg 80 (and also in 4.4 pg 83):
    > 
    > Whenever parameter action or acceptance are
    > dependent on other parameters,
    > the dependent parameters MUST be sent after the
    > parameters on
    > which they depend. If they are sent within the same
    > command, a
    > response for a parameter might imply responses for
    > others.
    
    I've been ignoring this paraghaph having been
    convinced that there are no dependencies among
    the operational parameters (those allowed to be
    used in the operational stage of login), and that
    any dependencies for security parameters would
    be naturally observed by security protocols (i.e.,
    first send me this, I'll send you that, now
    send this, etc.).
    
    However, I think you raised some good questions.
    I think this paragraph should be removed.
    Here are the reasons:
    
    "(sent) after" isn't defined. It is unclear
    whether "in higher numbered bytes within the 
    same PDU" qualifies as "after" or whether only
    "in a PDU sent at a later time" would. It's
    probably irrelevant, since due to the introduction
    of the C-bit, parameters can be accumulated and
    processed one "batch" at a time, without any
    specific order within the "batch" and they will
    quite likely not be processed PDU by PDU.
    Therefore, the text about them being sent in
    "the same command" is likely irrelevant, too,
    since many implementation simply won't check that.
    
    But what's really dangerous here is that an
    implementation that perceives some parameters
    as dependent may take the "might imply" text
    as an endorsement for sending back less key=value
    pairs than was received, which could make the
    other side never commit due to missing responses.
    We certainly don't want to allow for such a
    non-interoperability in the specification.
    
    So, could we please get rid of this whole
    paragraph?
    
    Thanks,
    
    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
    


Home

Last updated: Fri May 31 18:18:35 2002
10443 messages in chronological order