SORT BY:

LIST ORDER
THREAD
AUTHOR
SUBJECT


SEARCH

IPS HOME


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

    Re: iSCSI: Some proposed vendor-specific (X-) keys



    Bill Studenmund wrote:
    > 
    > On Fri, 7 Jun 2002, Luben Tuikov wrote:
    > 
    > > Bill Studenmund wrote:
    > > >
    > > >
    > > > That comment reflects a very nice ideal. My concern is that I'm not sure
    > > > we're there. What about Luben's comments that there are existing
    > > > interoperability problems among compliant systems? AS I understand him,
    > > > compliant *iSCSI* systems. ??
    > >
    > > I haven't checked for those lately, (especially in the login procedure),
    > > but any time you see ``MAY'' or ``may'' in the draft and a target
    > > and initiator arrive at different outcomes _just_ by taking one
    > > or the other route, you have ``compliant-non-interoperability''
    > > (as you coined the term).
    > 
    > I must say that's not what I had in mind when I coined the phrase. I don't
    > think the fact we let folks make different choices at MAY points is bad.
    > That's the point.
    
    You (as Paul) didn't read this sentence (quoted here from above):
    
    Any time you see ``MAY'' or ``may'' in the draft and a target
    and initiator arrive at different outcomes _just_ by taking one
    or the other route, you have ``compliant-non-interoperability''.
    
    Which is what you are describing in more ``baby-terms'' below.
    
    Read my reply to Paul, where I give 2 links to emails
    where this is described well -- this has since been fixed
    in the draft.
    
    BTW, I don't like ``MAY'' and ``may'' -- I don't use those
    two words personally and I sure don't like them in the spec as well.
     
    > I thought most of them were of the form, you MAY close the connection, or
    > you MAY do some error cleanup & try to recover. So both sides know
    > something happened.
    >
    > What I'd be worried about are places where different sides both thing
    > things are ok, but get on entirely different pages as to what exactly is
    > going on.
    > 
    > *Those* are what I was thinking of when I came up with compliant-non-
    > interoperability. :-)
    
    But you are merely repeating what I'm saying above... (and in my previous
    email).
    
    -- 
    Luben
    


Home

Last updated: Mon Jun 10 15:18:46 2002
10635 messages in chronological order