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

[Bill Studenmund <wrstuden@wasabisystems.com>]

On Mon, 10 Jun 2002, Luben Tuikov wrote:

> Bill Studenmund wrote:
> >
> > 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):

Yes, I did.

> 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.

No, that's not the same thing. You are saying EVERY may/MAY is a problem.
I disagree with that. I'll agree that SOME may be a problem, and that we
want to find them.

The difference is that the ones I recall describe one side as being able
to make a choice. If that choice is clearly communicated to the other
side, then we are fine. I think we communicate that all of the time, but
would appreciate finding out if we don't.

> 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.

Cool!

> > *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).

No, the difference is I don't think that a MAY automatically lands us in
trouble. I agree that most trouble cases start with a MAY, but I don't
think the presence of a MAY automatically leads us to trouble.

Take care,

Bill