Subject: RE: iSCSI: Negotiation clarifications still needed

From: "Julian Satran" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 30 May 2002 01:22:05 +0300

it is already there - thank you. Julo

Bill Studenmund <[email-masked]>
05/30/2002 12:09 AM
Please respond to Bill Studenmund

        To:     Julian Satran/Haifa/IBM@IBMIL
        cc:     Martins Krikis <[email-masked]>, <[email-masked]>, 
<[email-masked]>, <[email-masked]>
        Subject:        RE: iSCSI: Negotiation clarifications still needed

On Wed, 29 May 2002, Julian Satran wrote:

> Martins & Pat,
>
> In going over the list of the arguments for the ongoing negotiation 
(that
> we have now) versus. "stop-until-you-have-full-buffer" I think that I am
> more inclined now to accept that Martins's point about absolute 
simplicity
> is valid and we should accept it (i.e., stop untill you have a full
> buffer.
> AFAIK it  will not break any existing implementation as all/most of them
> are rudimentary and they are not in silicon (I hope).

If there is intereste, I'm willing to help write suggested algorithms to
implement this, a la appendix E.

Take care,

Bill

---

From: Bill Studenmund <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 29 May 2002 15:59:26 -0700 (PDT)

> it is already there - thank you. Julo

Thank you. I had not seen 12-95 was available.

The use of the 'C' bit in Text Request and Response cleanly implememnts
what Martins was suggesting.

However I did not see where we state that login negotiations use a
comparable mechanism. Actually, it looks like the text indicating login
negotiations can span PDUs was removed. Was that the desired effect?