|
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] Re: iSCSI: default valuesBlack_David@emc.com wrote: > > Default values may be difficult to define for text keys added after > the first stable version of the spec. The problem is that an > originator who does not send a text key cannot distinguish between: > > - a responder who understands the key and implements the default AND > - a responder who does not understand the key and does something > acceptable under a version of the spec prior to introduction > of the key. David, I see a minor nit in the above described scenario. During iscsi login, both sides need to agree on a common overlapping version in their respective ranges of (version_low, version_high) sent in the login pdu. Lack of a common version results in the target rejecting the login with an "unsupported version" status explanation. Once the 2 sides have agreed to a common version, both sides know all the supported operational & security keys in use. Thus, one side cannot send a "key defined in a later version of the spec" which the other side does not understand. Such an erroneous key usage, would have to be due to a buggy implementation and would cause the other side to treat it as a vendor unique key being originated to which it would respond with NotUnderstood. That said, I agree with the intent of your suggestions below. Thanks, Santosh > This whole notion of omitting a key being equivalent to sending > it with its default value strikes me as potentially problematic. > I would have thought that omitting a text key was equivalent to > "Don't Care" with the default values being "RECOMMENDED" rather > than "MANDATORY". This leads to the following rule, which I think > should go in regardless: > > - An implementation whose operational correctness and/or performance > depends on the value of a text key MUST explicitly negotiate > that key. > > This is somewhat like the old adage about voting - those who do not > vote should not complain about the results, and leads to more robust > negotiation exchanges because mismatched assumptions about defaults > get exposed. > > I realize this yields additional messages in some cases, but would > suggest that the additional negotiation robustness is an offsetting > benefit. > > Comments? > --David > --------------------------------------------------- > David L. Black, Senior Technologist > EMC Corporation, 42 South St., Hopkinton, MA 01748 > +1 (508) 435-1000 x75140 FAX: +1 (508) 497-8500 > black_david@emc.com Mobile: +1 (978) 394-7754 > --------------------------------------------------- -- ################################## Santosh Rao Software Design Engineer, HP-UX iSCSI Driver Team, Hewlett Packard, Cupertino. email : santoshr@cup.hp.com Phone : 408-447-3751 ##################################
Home Last updated: Wed Oct 17 15:17:27 2001 7269 messages in chronological order |