Re: iSCSI 4.1 & 4.2

[Luben Tuikov <luben@splentec.com>]

"Mallikarjun C." wrote:
>
> > Specifically, the two cases in which responses are OPTIONAL are:
> 
> I would strongly recommend getting rid of this special case.

I don't really object to the implicit result of some booleans.

Reasons:

1) Couldn't find incosistencies with other things
   I/we mentioned (states of offers, states of responses = states
   of complete neg. seq.). That is, couldn't find a
   (counter-) example.

2) For the same reason you all considered that some boolean
   responses to be optional: one can determine the outcome of the
   negotiation sequence and the state of the whole thing
   if one knows f(a,b) and b for certain f()'s over booleans.

Keeping the optional responses greatly simplifies things.

That is, the sender can safely assume a state and result
of the negotiation sequence and SHOULD a reply to that
key=value arrive and its value is NOT what was assumed,
then the Target should close the connection with Initiator Error
and the Initiator should just drop the connection.

Julian and all, please consider this.

-- 
Luben