Re: UNH Plugfest 5

[Paul Koning <pkoning@equallogic.com>]

>>>>> "Julian" == Julian Satran <Julian_Satran@il.ibm.com> writes:

 Julian> Paul, The aim of the standard is to create interoperale
 Julian> protocols not administrators.  An administrator may cause
 Julian> initiators and target NOT TO interoperate in a myriad of
 Julian> ways.

 Julian> The basic assumptions for the whole security setup is that
 Julian> the administrator will set them so that they can intemperate
 Julian> and the standard setter provides him with the means to do so.

 Julian> Your assumption that initiators and target should be able to
 Julian> interoperate regardless of their administrative entities is
 Julian> not what standards do.

So obviously we have a difference of opinion, because in my experience
this IS what standards must do, have done in the past, and should
continue to do in the future.

But since you disagree, I guess the standard will remain the way it
is.  So I'll read between the lines and consider the consequences of
this.  It amounts to:

1. Initiators are allowed to insist that targets do a full
   authentication before they issue a redirect.
2. Targets are not required to implement this.
3. However, if you want to build a target that works with initiators
   that do (1), you DO have to implement this.  You don't need it for
   conformance but you do need it for interoperability with initiators
   of type (1).

Is this what the WG wants to do?  In other words, the message to Bob
Russell is "yes, this interoperability issue is intentional"?

	paul