SORT BY:

LIST ORDER
THREAD
AUTHOR
SUBJECT


SEARCH

IPS HOME


    [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