Re: iscsi: comments to iSCSI rev 6

[Steve Senum <ssenum@cisco.com>]

Matt,

Okay, but I still don't see the need.

If one side initiates sending a key to the other side,
I might expect the following responses under
the current draft 6:

1. key returned with an option other other than 'none'.

2a. key not returned.
2b. key returned with option 'none'.

And you would add:

2c. key returned with option 'NotUnderstood'.

To me, responses 2a, 2b, and 2c all mean the same,
in as far as the side to initiate sending the key must
make do without that key.  From a negotiation point,
I don't see the value add in response 2c, or for that
matter, response 2b.

Matt Wakeley wrote:
> 
> Steve Senum wrote:
> >
> > I would prefer the text stay as is,
> > that the target not send any response
> > for an unknown key.  I see no value
> > at all in sending key=NotUnderstood.
> > Lack of a response tells me that already.
> 
> No it doesn't.  You can't tell the difference between "not understood" and
> "none", since "none" is allowed not to respond also.
> 
> I don't like that either.  If the response is "none", say so, don't just sit
> there silently.
> 
> -Matt