Re: iSCSI: list negotiation description

[Martins Krikis <mkrikis@yahoo.com>]

I looked at 12-90. I hadn't seen the announcements
for newer drafts. My fault. So 12-92 does not have
the text I was referring to anymore, which is good,
thanks. However, since it still says "MAY use the
constant Reject", can we know what other options
there are? I.e., why "MAY" and not "MUST"?
(This is now page 73 of 12-92.)

  Martins Krikis, Intel Corp.


--- Julian Satran <Julian_Satran@il.ibm.com> wrote:
> What version did you look at?  Considering the date
> of your mail it must 
> have been 12-91 only that 12-91 does not contain the
> text you quote - Julo
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Martins Krikis <mkrikis@yahoo.com>
> Sent by: owner-ips@ece.cmu.edu
> 05/23/2002 12:37 AM
> Please respond to Martins Krikis
> 
>  
>         To:     ips@ece.cmu.edu
>         cc: 
>         Subject:        iSCSI: list negotiation
> description
> 
>  
> 
> First a question again:
> 
> What is the point of allowing "inadmissible
> values" (or in case of lists, lack of acceptable
> values) be answered with an "admissible value"?
> 
> Now the problems.
> 
> Page 69, bottom paragraph:
> 
>   If a responder does support, understand or
>   is allowed to use none of the offered options
>   with a specific originator, it MAY use the
>   constant "Reject" or it MAY respond with an
>   admissible value. The selection of a value
>   not offered is considered a negotiation
>   failure and is handled as a protocol error.
> 
>
http://www.pdl.cmu.edu/mailinglists/ips/mail/msg10066.html
> made me believe that the phrase "or it MAY respond
> with an admissible value..." will be removed.
> 
> Since it hasn't been, I'll point out again that
> it contradicts the very next sentence, because
> this "admissible value" would be a "value not
> offered".
> Also, I must say that I almost regret having
> started picking on the beginning of this paragraph,
> because IMHO it has gotten worse. I'm still
> proposing this:
> 
>   If each of the offered values is not understood
>   or not supported, or the responder is not allowed
>   to use it with the specific originator, it MUST
>   use the constant "Reject".
> 
> Note that because other reasonable alternatives
> are eliminated, the original "MAY" can change to
> "MUST". (Which should be a good thing, BTW.)
> 
> Thanks,
> 
>   Martins Krikis, Intel Corp.
> 
> Disclaimer: these opinions are my own and may not
>             not be those of my employer
> 
> 
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> LAUNCH - Your Yahoo! Music Experience
> http://launch.yahoo.com
> 
> 
> 


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