RE: iSCSI "bad practice"

["Eddy Quicksall" <eddy_quicksall@ivivity.com>]

Works for me.

Eddy

-----Original Message-----
From: Julian Satran [mailto:Julian_Satran@il.ibm.com]
Sent: Friday, July 27, 2001 11:27 AM
To: eddy_quicksall@ivivity.com
Cc: ips@ece.cmu.edu
Subject: Re: iSCSI "bad practice"


Sure I can - I wanted to point out that such an answer will be harder to
read (infer) on  a trace and I can change it to:

   For numerical (and binary) negotiations, the responding party SHOULD
   respond with the required key but the offering party MUST accept no
   answer as equivalent to answering with the default value.

 Thanks,
 Julo

"Eddy Quicksall" <eddy_quicksall@ivivity.com> on 27-07-2001 16:37:27

Please respond to eddy_quicksall@ivivity.com

To:   Julian Satran/Haifa/IBM@IBMIL, ips@ece.cmu.edu
cc:
Subject:  iSCSI "bad practice"




I don't think statements like "However not responding is considered bad
practice and is  discouraged." should be in a spec.

The problem with this kind of statement is "well, what do I do if someone
does that?". There can be all sorts of interpretations. If "not responding"
is allowed, then so be it. If you don't want someone to "not respond", then
say so.

Can we please remove all of those ambiguous statements from the spec?

Eddy_Quicksall@iVivity.com