remove

["Guru" <guru@klsi.com>]

----- Original Message -----
From: "Julian Satran" <Julian_Satran@il.ibm.com>
To: <ips@ece.cmu.edu>
Sent: Wednesday, August 29, 2001 10:50 PM
Subject: RE: iSCSI - Change - Login/Text commands with the binary stage
code - IMPORTANT PROPOSAL


>
> The situation is not symmetric anyway. If we keep the final login we have
a
> text request answered by
> a Login request.
>
> I think that considering that text & login are equivalent during login if
> you care for complete symmetry you may want to use only login during the
> login phase.
>
> This way we could even remove the phases field from the text commands.
>
> So again the proposal is USE ONLY LOGIN during Login (the reason I did no
> put initially is now history anyway).
>
> COMMENTS?
>
> Julo
>
>
> "Ayman Ghanem" <aghanem@cisco.com>@ece.cmu.edu on 30-08-2001 05:26:27
>
> Please respond to "Ayman Ghanem" <aghanem@cisco.com>
>
> Sent by:  owner-ips@ece.cmu.edu
>
>
> To:   <ips@ece.cmu.edu>
> cc:
> Subject:  RE: iSCSI - Change - Login/Text commands with the binary stage
>       code
>
>
>
> Julian,
>
> One could also argue for symmetry; only one login response per login cmd.
> On
> the other hand, the only time a partial login is returned at the moment is
> when status class is 0 and F=0. Any other status class results in a final
> login response. For status class 0, there exists 3 status detail codes: 0,
> 1, and 2. The first two are implied from the negotiation phase, and the
> third case will no longer exist if we enforce the ITN to be sent in the
> login cmd. The session parameters returned in a partial login response are
> not needed because the connection has not joined the session yet during
> login.
>
> -Ayman
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: owner-ips@ece.cmu.edu [mailto:owner-ips@ece.cmu.edu]On Behalf Of
> > Julian Satran
> > Sent: Wednesday, August 29, 2001 4:18 PM
> > To: ips@ece.cmu.edu
> > Subject: Re: iSCSI - Change - Login/Text commands with the binary stage
> > code
> >
> >
> > Steve,
> >
> > The partial response is not strictly needed it is just handy to have the
> > login request answered
> > with a login response. On this we can put the partial/final answer. For
a
> > text it would have been arbitrary (text outside login does not need it).
> >
> > As for the names - I though that security people might object having the
> > name in clear if the security phase does not make use of the name.
> > Otherwise we can mandate them on the login but I wonder if that is a
real
> > improvement or we are getting carelles.
> >
> > Julo
> >
> >
> > Steve Senum <ssenum@cisco.com>@ece.cmu.edu on 29-08-2001 23:59:36
> >
> > Please respond to Steve Senum <ssenum@cisco.com>
> >
> > Sent by:  owner-ips@ece.cmu.edu
> >
> >
> > To:   ietf-ips <ips@ece.cmu.edu>
> > cc:
> > Subject:  Re: iSCSI - Change - Login/Text commands with the binary stage
> >       code
> >
> >
> >
> > Julian,
> >
> > A couple of ideas from Matthew Burbridge & Co.'s
> > login proposal that has generated some interest here:
> >
> > 1. Removal of partial login response.  Is it still needed?
> >
> > 2. Requiring Initiator and (if not a discovery session)
> >    Target names on login command, so they are always
> >    available if needed by the initial phase.
> >
> > Comments?
> >
> > Regards,
> > Steve Senum
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>