RE: iSCSI: keys/parameter dependence

["THALER,PAT (A-Roseville,ex1)" <pat_thaler@agilent.com>]

This matches my understanding of what we were doing
with the C bit and it is consistant with the C bit
text in the draft.

Pat

-----Original Message-----
From: Martins Krikis [mailto:mkrikis@yahoo.com]
Sent: Wednesday, June 05, 2002 12:33 PM
To: Julian Satran
Cc: ips@ece.cmu.edu
Subject: Re: iSCSI: keys/parameter dependence


--- Julian Satran <Julian_Satran@il.ibm.com> wrote:

> Almost everything is correct - except the mechanism
> for 
> Very-Long-responses - (TTT).
> This is different than the spanning mechanism (C-
> bit) in the sense that 
> has in theory no bounds (it was devised mainly for
> SendTargets but can be 
> used by any mechanism that has to send a lot of data
> - not negotiations).

Hmm, let me verify that I'm understanding this...

Let's suppose the following scenario:

A target is planning to send a very long response
(exceeding the mandatory buffering capabilities
of the other side) to a TextRequest that contained
the SendTargets key. This is legal, 
because it is not a negotiation, right? 

Let's suppose the text it is sending
will get broken in m TextResponse PDUs. 
For any of these PDUs, if the key=value pairs fit
completely (i.e., including the terminating '\0'),
and if the target doesn't mind the possibility
that the initiator may send some data back
(for example, do a little negotiation in parallel
with hearing what SendTargets will return...),
then it need not set the C-bit. Correct?

But it is also permissible to set the C-bit, 
since the target may not consider itself as 
"being done with this set of keys". Right?

If, however, in some PDU the last key=value
pair is split (i.e., will continue in the next
PDU), then it MUST set the C-bit, because
such a PDU cannot possibly "end a set of keys".

Can anybody comment on this understanding, please?

Applying this understanding to the example in
section 9.10.4, I can conjecture that the C
bit may or may not be set; it depends on whether
<part x> contains only complete (with '\0' at the 
end) pairs or not, and possibly on target's
preferences. The PDUs travelling in the other
direction need not necessarily be empty, unless
the C-bit in the preceding PDU forces them to be.
Is this true?

Many thanks in advance,

Martins Krikis, Intel Corp.

Disclaimer: these are my own opinions and are
            not necessarily Intel's opinions.


__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! - Official partner of 2002 FIFA World Cup
http://fifaworldcup.yahoo.com