|
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] Re: FW: Redirection (was UNH Plugfest 5)Paul version 1 is acceptable and that is what David and I where saying most of the time - Julo
>>>>> "Julian" == Julian Satran <Julian_Satran@il.ibm.com> writes: Julian> David, The only way to do it cleany the way you want it is to Julian> allow the redirect response (0101 and 0102) only in Julian> operational parameter stage. But that seems rather Julian> excessive. If we want to mandate a single way of handling I Julian> would suggest stating that 0101 and 0102 SHOULD be accepted Julian> even during authentication (Paul's POV). Again I don't thing Julian> it adds anything as local policy may prevent an initiator Julian> from considering those values. "SHOULD" is helpful in that at least it gives a recommendation. But it is not good enough. We want to build targets that interoperate with all initiators. Right now, the spec simply does not permit us to achieve this goal. I've expressed a preference in how things would work, but it doesn't matter a whole lot which way things go. Right now, we have an implementation that will issue a redirect before completing the full authentication handshake. Most initiators accept this, but some do not. We're perfectly willing to change it so the target does complete the whole authentication handshake, and only then sends the redirect. But we're afraid to do so because the spec does not require initiators to accept that either! So we're faced with a known interop problem, and if we change the behavior to the other possible way we are at risk of running into other initiators that don't like doing things THAT way. So pick one, but it MUST be a MUST. 1. An initiator MUST accept a redirect from a target that has completed the authentication handshake; it MAY (or SHOULD) accept it from a target that has not yet completed the handshake. or 2. An initiator MUST accept a redirect from a target that has not yet completed the authentication handshake; it SHOULD (or MAY) accept it from a target that has completed the handshake. Well, of course there's a third alternative, which is to require that both alternatives MUST be accepted. I do not propose that but would not object to it. paul
Home Last updated: Mon Jan 20 18:19:04 2003 12220 messages in chronological order |