RE: iSCSI Login Proposal

["Julian Satran" <Julian_Satran@il.ibm.com>]

Matthew,

There is a transition diagram in 4 and I doubt that we need now much beyond
it
but let's see what you have.

Regards,
Julo

"BURBRIDGE,MATTHEW (HP-UnitedKingdom,ex2)" <matthew_burbridge@hp.com> on
22-08-2001 12:06:32

Please respond to "BURBRIDGE,MATTHEW (HP-UnitedKingdom,ex2)"
      <matthew_burbridge@hp.com>

To:   Julian Satran/Haifa/IBM@IBMIL
cc:   ips@ece.cmu.edu
Subject:  RE: iSCSI Login Proposal



Hi Julian,

I was aware of the proposed change (I actually voted for it in London). I
thought of staying with SecurityContextComplete for the time being as it is
nearer the current spec.  I am happy to go either way. Personally I prefer
the put the status in the text command/response (For the new proposal its
not needed in the login command/response).  The login proposal has an
additional state ("Pre-security state") which would need to be reflected in
your proposal.

Is there value is specifying a login state machine in the spec?  I am happy
to do this (I have written one any way) but did not include it in the
proposal for simplicity's sake.

Cheers

Matthew


-----Original Message-----
From: Julian Satran [mailto:Julian_Satran@il.ibm.com]
Sent: Wednesday, August 22, 2001 9:49 AM
To: BURBRIDGE,MATTHEW (HP-UnitedKingdom,ex2)
Cc: ips@ece.cmu.edu
Subject: Re:iSCSI Login Proposal


Matthew,

Apologies to you, Marjorie and Bob for "changing the rules" during the
game.

I thought that it was obvious that I am going to rewrite 4 and simplify the
rules by neatly staging the login phase through a binary type indicator
that should show where the command is. Although I was myself not very
thrilled by the idea (presented in London) the meeting ended with a
consensus that I should explore this and that is what I did.

The result is not bad (the stages a clearly delineated, there are fewer
handshakes than before etc.).

Regards,
Julo