|
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] RE: iSCSI extension algorithms (was no subject)Nick, > I agree that an implementation which implements or includes only > proprietary extension algorithm Z should be unacceptable. > I am only questioning whether this paragraph acomplishes that goal. > I am reading "offer" in the negotiation sense, not in the implemented > feature set sense. You're correct. The "MUST implement" requirement for CHAP is elsewhere, and applies no matter what; this paragraph is about negotiation when a proprietary algorithm is involved. > Although it makes little sense to me for the target which is configured > with no CHAP secrets to "offer" CHAP during negotiation, I can accept it > in this situation. I would prefer to see implementation of CHAP listed > as the requirement, rather than offering CHAP when it is not configured > to work. We'll keep that in mind in working out the final text. > It seems now that it is not intended that to "offer" CHAP in negotiation > should be interpreted as an indication that CHAP is configured work. > > I hope an implementation which can "offer" CHAP but does not implement > CHAP, or one which can "offer" CHAP but does not allow CHAP to be > configured by an administrator will also be unacceptable. The former is definitely unacceptable, the latter should be - as far as I'm concerned if the code is present but can't be used, it doesn't count as implemented because I can't see evidence of the implementation on the wire. Thanks, --David
Home Last updated: Thu Jan 09 01:18:59 2003 12145 messages in chronological order |