RE: iSCSI extension algorithms (was no subject)

["Julian Satran" <Julian_Satran@il.ibm.com>]

Steve and David,

I think that Nick has a valid point.
  The intent was to avoid having a new player forcing either the new
thing or nothing.
But I think that the same can be achieved
by saying "MUST be able to offer" which says that an administrator
MAY configure it with an additional
authentication.

It looks like being a bit stronger than
MUST IMPLEMENT because MUST IMPLEMENT does not require an implementation
to offer two authentication methods together.

I would like to drive this to a conclusion
(draft) by the end of this week.

Thanks,
Julo

Black_David@emc.com
Sent by: owner-ips@ece.cmu.edu

09/01/03 00:25

To	Nick.Martin@hp.com, Black_David@emc.com
cc	ips@ece.cmu.edu
Subject	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