|
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] RE: iSCSI: keys/parameter dependenceJulian: > I agree that the wording for 1 that you suggest is better than the current > text and If I will have a chance I will do it (during the last correction > pass of the RFC editor - called 48 Hours). For your second point things > are more complex and we will probably have to live with the current text. No problem -- sorry we didn't discover it sooner. Although this will probably not get into the draft, could you confirm (or not) my interpretation of what a "step" is in the context of an authentication exchange, and also could you confirm (or not) my interpretation of how these keys can be distributed over several pdus (as in the examples I cited)? Your confirmation would be extremely useful to us in constructing conformance and interoperability tests. Thanks again, Bob Russell > > > > "Robert D. Russell" <rdr@io.iol.unh.edu> > 27/01/03 21:43 > > To > Julian Satran/Haifa/IBM@IBMIL, "" <ips@ece.cmu.edu> > cc > > Subject > RE: iSCSI: keys/parameter dependence > > > > > > > Julian: > > A request for clarification on some wording in the current standard > (draft 20). > > 1. In section 5 on page 50, in the 4th paragraph (the one starting: > "For the keys that require negotiation ...") > the second sentence says: > "The other party (the accepting party) makes a selection > based on the value or list of values proposed and includes > the selected value in a key=value in the data part of the > following Login or Text Response or Request." > > The problem is with the word "following". A very long discussion > on the mailing list last June, under the thread > "iSCSI: keys/parameter dependence" > made it clear that the reply key=value to an offer does not have > to be given in the immediately following response pdu, but can be > delayed until some later time before the end of the negotiation > stage. In other words, responses can be saved up and "batched" > in a later response pdu. > > Therefore, I believe this intent would be better conveyed if the > words: > "in the data part of the following Login or Text Response or > Request" > in the current text on page 50 quoted above were changed to: > "in the data part of one of the following Login or Text > ^^^^^^ > Responses or Requests" > ^ ^ > > > 2. There is a similar problem with some wording in section 8.2, in > the fourth paragraph (the one starting with "Section 11 ..."). > The discussion in this paragraph talks about "steps", and > "exact steps", without defining what a "step" is, and I believe > this may need some clarification. > > Looking at section 11.1.4, the first step is taken by the initiator > when it sends: > CHAP_A=<A1,A2...> > to the target. > The second step is taken by the target when it answers with a > Login reject or with: > CHAP_A=<A> CHAP_I=<I> CHAP_C=<C> > > > It is my understanding that in the second step, these 3 keys could > be sent by the target in any order, for example: > CHAP_C=<C> CHAP_I=<I> CHAP_A=<A> > and further, that they could be sent in separate pdus -- that > is, the target could send > CHAP_C=<C> > in one Login Response pdu, > CHAP_A=<A> > in the next Login Response pdu, and finally > CHAP_I=<I> > in the final Login Response pdu. All these pdus would belong > to the same step, and the step would not be completed until > all the keys had been received, regardless of the number of > pdus that had to be exchanged to achieve this. > > Is this the correct interpretation of a "step"? > > And are the example exchanges shown above correct > implementations of the first and second "steps"? > > Perhaps it would be clearer if the word "step" were actually > used in section 11.1.4. For example, it could say: > > "For CHAP {RFC1994], in the first step, the initiator > sends: > CHAP_A=<A1,A2...>" > > "In the second step, the target MUST answer with .. " > > "In the third step, the initiator MUST continue with ..." > > I believe it is already clear from the wording in section 8.2 > that a new step cannot be started until the previous step is > completed. > > > Thank you for your consideration. > > Bob Russell > InterOperability Lab > University of New Hampshire > rdr@iol.unh.edu > 603-862-3774 > >
Home Last updated: Tue Jan 28 16:19:03 2003 12267 messages in chronological order |