Subject: iSCSI - empty PDUs

From: "Julo-Actcom" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 19 Jun 2002 07:48:55 +0300

Pat,

SHOULD  is probably OK.
The intent of my text was to cover any case in which rules may require an empty PDU current and future.

I don't understand your point about nothing to send.

If an initiator has nothing to send it should not send unless prompted by an Asynch Message and a target must send if F=0.

Julo

To: [email-masked], [email-masked] 
  a.. Subject: RE: iSCSI: use of Text/Login with no data segment 
  b.. From: [email-masked] 
  c.. Date: Mon, 17 Jun 2002 15:52:09 -0600 
  d.. Content-Type: multipart/mixed;boundary="----=_NextPartTM-000-5b802533-822f-11d6-ac7f-009027aa5b50" 
  e.. Sender: [email-masked] 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Julian,

I think a MUST is too strong here. Also, the text "unless explicitly required by a general or a key-specific negotiation rule" may not cover the case of  receiving a Text/Login R___ with F/T=0 and C=0 when one has no keys to send. I don't think there is any explicit rule in the draft requiring one to send with no data segment in that case. It is just implict that one must respond with such a PDU if the negotiation is to finish. Therefore, the following text would be better:

A target or initiator SHOULD NOT use a Text/Login Response or Text/
Login Request with no data segment (DataSegmentLength 0) unless
responding to a Text/Login Request or Text/Login Response, respectively,
with the F/T bit set to 0 while the node has no keys to send or with the C bit
set to 1.

(This is the same as the text at the bottom except T bit is corrected to F/T to cover Text PDUs.) 

Pat