RE: iSCSI: Login Request error

[Martins Krikis <mkrikis@yahoo.com>]

Pat, Luben,

I think we're fighting an uphill battle here...

I've been complaining about some of the same
things, and, as Luben said, nobody cared. I get 
the feeling that there is a bigger wish to get the
draft "out" despite the ambiguities and problems in
both the negotiation protocol and its description,
than to change a single thing "this late".
I think there is also an assumption (that I don't
hold) that having choices in the negotiation 
protocol allows more freedom to implementations
and thus simplifies them.

Luben was asking whether EBNF would be used
if submitted. I personally doubt it, since 
perfectly reasonable regular expressions were 
dropped.

And there is probably little point asking the
phylosophical questions. I still don't see the
value of Irrelevant, allowing Reject-ed keys
to be renegotiated, allowing not Reject-ing
"inadmissible" values, allowing omission of
boolean values, base64 for anything but binary
strings, and many other "features". But I'll
probably receive email telling me to "move on"
just for mentioning this stuff here again...
Or the best explanation will be "we talked about
it here, but nobody objected too strongly".

Anyway, I'm behind you in your efforts and looks
like I should resume some of my own battles
(no-renegotiation rule unclear).

Good luck,

  Martins Krikis, Intel Corp.

Disclaimer: these opinions are my own and may
            not be those of my employer








__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
LAUNCH - Your Yahoo! Music Experience
http://launch.yahoo.com