Re: [iSCSI]: Key negotiation procedure proposal

["John Hufferd" <hufferd@us.ibm.com>]

I do not see the new draft as broken,  it is a bit clearer.  And it has
worked in the plugfests.  We only have had about 3-4 folks that have been
having a problem here, most of the rest are busy doing meaning work.  But
these 3 folks have been chatting a lot.

What I see is some folks dealing with is preference not brokenness.  There
might be some words that you want to clear up.  Please suggest them, but
lets not get into preferences on how one would like it to work I think we
are past that, lets just clear up the miss understanding.

.
.
.
John L. Hufferd
Senior Technical Staff Member (STSM)
IBM/SSG San Jose Ca
Main Office (408) 256-0403, Tie: 276-0403,  eFax: (408) 904-4688
Home Office (408) 997-6136, Cell: (408) 499-9702
Internet address: hufferd@us.ibm.com


Bill Studenmund <wrstuden@wasabisystems.com>@ece.cmu.edu on 05/24/2002
12:53:57 PM

Sent by:    owner-ips@ece.cmu.edu


To:    Julian Satran/Haifa/IBM@IBMIL
cc:    Martins Krikis <mkrikis@yahoo.com>, <ips@ece.cmu.edu>,
       <owner-ips@ece.cmu.edu>
Subject:    Re: [iSCSI]: Key negotiation procedure proposal



On Fri, 24 May 2002, Julian Satran wrote:

> All this thread is based on the assumption that discovery of what other
> side capabilities are is a good thing to have in the protocol.

We must be reading different threads. While I've seen discovery mentioned
and discussed, it's not been a base assumption of what I understood the
thread was about.

> Except for one item the group has decided a long time ago against it.
> The messages consume an inordinate amount of time from all of us - and we
> are looking for things to fix (big or small).

The thread was about the fact people think that login negotiation needs
fixing. It could be the negotiation methods need changing (as in Lubin's
suggestion), or the text needs changing to something more like what John
wrote.

The point though is that the current negotiation description is broken in
the minds of a number of implementors. It sounds like it is not broken in
the minds of a number of the WG members who have been involved for a
while. So from that I conclude the spec hasn't been capturing what is in
the WG's thoughts; the spec needs work.

> If you think that negotiations have to be done some other way that is
> essentially better - please discuss this between yourselves and  submit
an
> ID.

I think that would be a reasonable suggestion if we were talking about
making it spiffier & better. But we're complaining that we think it's
broken. Telling us to go off and come back with an ID does not strike me
as a suggestion which will help us converge to an answer.

Take care,

Bill