I don’t think we should be in the business of adding lots of code to
cope with possible bugs at the other end … there would be no end to what you
would do and how you would do it.
Couldn’t we just strike the sentence and say what Dr. Russell said. I
would suggest something like:
“There is no such thing as implicit offers. If an explicit offer is not
made then a reply cannot be expected.”
-- cut and past from his EMAIL --
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.
Eddy
-----Original
Message-----
From: Black_David@emc.com
[mailto:Black_David@emc.com]
Sent: Saturday, January 26, 2002
3:31 AM
To: Eddy_Quicksall@ivivity.com
Cc: ips@ece.cmu.edu
Subject: RE: iSCSI: not offering a
key
> 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).
Here are two examples of how it's different:
(1) If for some reason the other party doesn't have the
same default (bugs happen), negotiation
should drive
both parties to an agreed value, but in the
absence of
negotiation, the other party might do
something different.
Moral: if a key value is important, it
MUST be negotiated.
This is a little weaker than Luben's statement
that
all keys always have to be negotiated.
That strength
was never intended.
(2) If the other party wants to negotiate the value and
both offer the same default value, not offering
the default
results in an additional step before the
negotiation can
conclude, viz:
-> Nothing
-> Key=Default
<- Key=Default <-
Key=Default
-> Key=Default
--David
