Re: iSCSI: Alternatives to Urgent Pointer "pseudo-Framing"

To: IPS Reflector <ips@ece.cmu.edu>
Subject: Re: iSCSI: Alternatives to Urgent Pointer "pseudo-Framing"
From: Matt Wakeley <matt_wakeley@agilent.com>
Date: Thu, 16 Nov 2000 09:56:57 -0800
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Organization: Agilent Technologies
References: <OF90FE544E.7184BA90-ON88256999.0018FC9B@LocalDomain> <4.3.2.7.2.20001116090041.01a64c50@fedex.cisco.com>
Reply-To: Matt Wakeley <matt_wakeley@agilent.com>
Sender: owner-ips@ece.cmu.edu

Your mailbox is going to hate you for asking that.

Simple answer - no, this WG is not allowed to define a new TCP option.

-Matt

Dante Malagrino' wrote:

> Folks,
>
> I have a general question for this group. Are we allowed to define a new
> TCP option, to be used for iSCSI framing? Otherwise, can the group work in
> collaboration with some other IETF-WG's for this purpose?
>
> -- Dante
>
> Dante Malagrino'
> Cisco Systems                  Empowering the Internet Generation
> 170 West Tasman Drive                         Tel. (408) 525 4120
> San Jose, CA, 95134-1706                      Fax. (408) 525 4120
>                                                   dantem@cisco.com

References:
- Re: iSCSI: Urgent Pointer Negotation
  - From: "John Hufferd/San Jose/IBM" <hufferd@us.ibm.com>
- iSCSI: Alternatives to Urgent Pointer "pseudo-Framing"
  - From: "Dante Malagrino'" <dantem@cisco.com>

Prev by Date: timers
Next by Date: RE: timers
Prev by thread: iSCSI: Alternatives to Urgent Pointer "pseudo-Framing"
Next by thread: Re: iSCSI: Urgent Pointer Negotation
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread

Home

Last updated: Tue Sep 04 01:06:24 2001
6315 messages in chronological order