Re: iSCSI Draft 11 Comments

["Julian Satran" <Julian_Satran@il.ibm.com>]

Bob,

I had a "mechanical failure" in chapter 2 (both the inserts and deletes appear in the pdf and text).
Take the file from my site for the "intended" version.

? has been dropped.

I will fix the MUSTs in 11.4 and 5.

Julo

"Robert D. Russell" <rdr@io.iol.unh.edu> 06-03-02 11:36 Please respond to "Robert D. Russell"

To:        Julian Satran/Haifa/IBM@IBMIL         cc:        ips@ece.cmu.edu         Subject:        Re: iSCSI Draft 11 Comments

Julian:

3 small editorial corrections that I believe should be made to draft 11.


1)  In section 2.2.4, the fourth paragraph from the end, on page 36,
    should be removed:

    The value "?" with any key has the meaning of enquiry and should be
    answered with the current value or "NotUnderstood". The value "?" MUST
    be used ONLY in Full Feature Phase.  Whenever the responder has 2 two
    values for a key - one for the offering-to-responding-party direction
    and a second one for the responding-to-offering-party direction it
    will answer with the two values separated by a comma starting with the
    requesting-to-offering-party direction.


2)  In section 11.4, on page 186, the word "must" should be "MUST":

    The initiator of the TCP connection MUST provide this key to the
                                        ^^^^
    remote endpoint in the first login request if the initiator is not


3)  In section 11.5, on page 187, the word "must" should be "MUST":

    The initiator of the TCP connection MUST provide this key to the
                                        ^^^^
    remote endpoint at the first Login of the login phase for every con-
    nection. The Initiator key enables the initiator to identify itself to
    the remote endpoint.

Thanks,

Bob Russell
InterOperability Lab
University of New Hampshire
rdr@iol.unh.edu
603-862-3774