SORT BY:

LIST ORDER
THREAD
AUTHOR
SUBJECT


SEARCH

IPS HOME


    [Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

    RE: iSCSI: Login Proposal



    Good questions, Steve.
    
    Question 2 caused me to ponder the concept of key-value preferences.  I.e.,
    I suspect that the concept in the proposed login spec was to address that
    the initiator may prefer to not have any security digests, but might be able
    to negotiate them if the target insisted.
    
    I cannot find anywhere in the I-D that states that a recipient MUST consider
    key=v1,v2,v3 as the sender having preference of v1 over v2, and v2 over v3.
    Thus, I second Q2, but only if key values are to be interpreted in
    preferential order.  Thus, an initiator could send
    "DataDigest=none,crc32-c,SPKM", and the target's response MUST honor the
    preference order.
    
    So, Q4 is: should the values in a key-value list be consider the sender's
    preference order that the receiver must honor?
    
    Stephen
    
    -----Original Message-----
    From: Steve Senum [mailto:ssenum@cisco.com]
    Sent: Tuesday, August 21, 2001 1:14 PM
    To: ietf-ips
    Subject: Re: iSCSI: Login Proposal
    
    
    Matthew/Marjorie/Bob:
    
    Some questions on your login proposal:
    
    1. Why the following restriction?
    
        SecurityContextComplete=yes MUST NOT be present
        in the login command.
    
    I don't see the benefit in not allowing something like:
    
    I: AuthMethod:none
       HeaderDigest:crc-32c,none
       DataDigest:crc-32c,none
       SecurityContextComplete=yes
    T: AuthMethod:none
       HeaderDigest:crc-32c
       DataDigest:crc-32c
       SecurityContextComlete=yes
    
    2. In the following:
    
        If the login command does not contain security parameters
        the target MUST perform one of the two actions below:
    
        a) If the target requires security negotiation
           to be performed, then it MUST enter the security
           phase and MUST send a text response containing
           one or more security parameters and F=0.
    
        b)
    
    Is this really needed?  Why not simply require the
    initiator to offer security parameters if it supports them?
    I would hope authentication would become the typical case
    for login.
    
    3. Is there only one Login Reponse then (just asking)?
    
    Regards,
    Steve Senum
    
    


Home

Last updated: Tue Feb 26 08:18:02 2002
8892 messages in chronological order