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
