RE: iSCSI: not offering a key

["Robert D. Russell" <rdr@io.iol.unh.edu>]

I believe this sentence was added to the spec because at the
last UNH plugfest, several people were interpreting "no explicit
offer" of a key as an "implicit" offer of the default for the key,
and were therefore expecting a reply.  This sentence is intended
to prevent that interpretation -- if you don't make an explict offer
you cannot expect a reply -- there are no such things as implicit offers.

Bob Russell


On Fri, 25 Jan 2002, Eddy Quicksall wrote:

> Maybe I don't understand the sentence. I interpret it to mean that if the
> default value is acceptable to me then not offering it is somehow different
> than the default ... and that confuses me (well, actually it makes me wonder
> if the sentence is trying to say something else).
>
> I think I get it ... the default for MaxConnections is 1. If I offer
> MaxConnections=1 (the default) then the target can't negotiate for more
> connections even though I could have supported more connections. Is that
> what you are trying to say?
>
> It is probably just me but is there a clearer way to convey what you are
> trying to say?
>
>
> Eddy
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Julian Satran [mailto:Julian_Satran@il.ibm.com]
> Sent: Friday, January 25, 2002 2:00 PM
> To: Eddy Quicksall
> Cc: ips@ece. cmu. edu (E-mail)
> Subject: Re: iSCSI: not offering a key
>
>
> To keep the negotiation stateless - Julo
>
>
>
>
> Eddy Quicksall <Eddy_Quicksall@ivivity.com>
> 25-01-02 17:08
>
>         To:        "ips@ece. cmu. edu (E-mail)" <ips@ece.cmu.edu>
>         cc:        Julian Satran/Haifa/IBM@IBMIL
>         Subject:        iSCSI: not offering a key
>
>
>
>
> The spec says:
>
> Not offering a key for negotiation is not
> equivalent to offering the current (or default) value.
>
> Does anyone know why?
>
> Eddy
>
>