Subject: Re: iSCSI Parameter Negotiation

From: [email-masked]
Date: Fri, 27 Apr 2001 22:15:43 +0300

Bob,

 - 1 - I've seen it (too late for 6)
I'll see what I can do about 2.

Thanks,
Julo

"Robert D. Russell" <[email-masked]> on 27/04/2001 21:23:37

Please respond to "Robert D. Russell" <[email-masked]>

To:   Julian Satran/Haifa/IBM@IBMIL
cc:   [email-masked]
Subject:  Re: iSCSI Parameter Negotiation

Julo:

Two small points:

1) I believe there is a minor formating error in draft 6 -- the title
   page for Appendix A is out of place -- it appears on page 96,
   before section 8.  Consequently, Appendix A on page 96 is empty,
   and then all the other Appendix labels are shifted, so the label
   Appendix B on page 104 really should be labeled Appendix A,
   the label Appendix C on page 118 really should be labeled Appendix B,
   etc.

2) The term "operational parameters" is used in many places in draft 6,
   but is never actually defined anywhere.  To me, it appears that there
   are only two types of parameters: security parameters, which are all
   listed in Appendix A, and operational parameters, which are all
   listed in Appendix D.  Therefore, I would suggest a change in the title
   of Appendix D from: "Login/Text Miscellaneous Keys" to
   "Login/Text Operational Keys" or just "Operational Keys".

   The definition of "security parameters" is clearly stated at the end
   of the first paragraph on page 83: "For a list of security parameters
   see Appendix A."  A similar statement should be added somewhere
   in section 4.3 on page 84: "For a list of operational parameters
   see Appendix D."  Alternatively (or additionally), the statement just
   quoted on page 83 could be modified to read: "All security parameters
   are listed in Appendix A, and all operational parameters in Appendix D."

Bob Russell
InterOperability Lab
University of New Hampshire
[email-masked]
603-862-3774
On Fri, 27 Apr 2001 [email-masked] wrote:

> Robert,
>
> Yes - the target can "initiate" a negotiation (be a offering party).
> Driven was meant to underline that a sequence should end with an
initiator
> setting the F bit and then the target
> doing the same (except for errors).  I will try to fix the text to make
it
> clear.
> Julo