|
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] Re: iSCSI: not offering a keyExcerpt of message (sent 25 January 2002) by Eddy Quicksall: > The spec says: > > Not offering a key for negotiation is not > equivalent to offering the current (or default) value. > > Does anyone know why? And > 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). 1. The sentence ``Not offering a key for negotiation is not equivalent to offering the current (or default) value.'' means that one cannot assume the current (or default) value for a key which has not been offered for negotiation (negotiated). I.e. you cannot assume as to the value of a key, not the default, not the current. You always have to negotiate it... It may turn out that both T and I use the default, nevertheless they have to negotiate it. This is what the sentence means from a logical point of view. But what is meant by it the iSCSI draft, maybe someone else will confirm. I don't think that there is a better way to put this. Whether that is what is meant in the draft... is another topic. 2. Previous sentence in the draft: ``All negotiations are stateless (i.e., the result MUST be based only on newly exchanged values).'' means that no keys are inherited or persistent... _But_ the draft needs to specify a scope (connection, session, etc) for the non-persistence of negotiations of keys' values (just as persistence is explicitly specified in terms of scopes in formal definitions). There is probably a better way to put this, probably using words like ``scope'', ``persistence'', ``session'', ``connection'', etc., which will eliminate the ``(i.e. ...)''. -- -l
Home Last updated: Sat Jan 26 04:17:57 2002 8498 messages in chronological order |