Re: iscsi: comments to iSCSI rev 6

["Matt Wakeley" <matt_wakeley@agilent.com>]

Steve Senum wrote:
> 
> 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.

The result may mean the same, but for diagnostic purposes, the only thing you
know is you can't do it.  You don't know why.  If you know why, then perhaps
you can take corrective action to remedy the problem.

-Matt