|
Yea, what Paul suggested is also what I suggested in the
beginning. If that is ok then do you still think it would help clear things
up?
I also go along with what Mallikarjun said and David seemed to
back up ... that we should probably go over the MUST's and see which are
actually needed (I think that is what he meant).
Eddy
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Friday, January 05, 2007 3:27
PM
Subject: Re: iSCSI Implementer's
Guide - WG Last Call status
Eddy,
It was stated here several times already that the
general rule in RFCs is that sender has to be strict and the receiver
lenient.
It is however really
difficult to say what exactly lenient means (as it is very much dependent on
implementations). The rules are stated in terms of what a sender must
do.
It is also obvious that draft
authors would be reluctant to make a blanket statement of the receiver not
being manadated to check (as in some case that might be blatantly incorrect).
Just to give you an example - would it be acceptable to say that a sender has
to put a correct CRC in the frame but the receiver is free not to check it
?
A blanket statement like the one you
requested would cover such a behaviour too (that would be obviously incorect).
Perhaps a statement along the lines of what Paul suggest ed with the
caveat -"as long as it does not violate an explicit rule" should be
enough.
Regards,
Julo
| "Eddy Quicksall"
<Quicksall_iSCSI@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
05/01/07 11:25
|
|
To
| "Paul Koning"
<pkoning@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
<cb_mallikarjun@xxxxxxxxx>
|
|
cc
| ips@xxxxxxxx
|
|
Subject
| Re: iSCSI Implementer's
Guide - WG Last Call status |
|
I remember long ago talking about this when we were developing the RFC.
I
remember some people clearly saying that if the RFC said "must do X"
then it
meant that the peer "must check X". I didn't pursue the issue
because it
seemed to be of little importance.
But as time went on
and the draft got finalized, I ran into cases where that
view was still
taken to hart. Of course "the customer is always right" so I
added
checks.
More recently I thought that since this guide was being written
that maybe a
simple statement could be made to clarify the
issue.
I'm not debating the issue of the importance of making a check
or even the
criteria for making the check.
Eddy
-----
Original Message -----
From: "Paul Koning"
<pkoning@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: <cb_mallikarjun@xxxxxxxxx>
Cc:
<ips@xxxxxxxx>
Sent: Thursday, January 04, 2007 6:00 PM
Subject:
Re: iSCSI Implementer's Guide - WG Last Call
status
>>>>>> "Mallikarjun" == Mallikarjun C
<cb_mallikarjun@xxxxxxxxx> writes:
>
> Mallikarjun> Paul,
Agree with everything you wrote.
>
> Mallikarjun> RFC 3720 does
not require sane reactions to non-sane
> Mallikarjun> inputs.
This draft should not say anything that
> Mallikarjun> suggests
target/initiator may draw sane interpretations
> Mallikarjun> to
non-sane inputs either.
>
> Great summary.
>
>
Mallikarjun> Sounds like an agreement to not add any new text to
me.
>
> Well, Eddy raised the issue a while back that some people
writing
> conformance tests were interpreting "initiator must do X" as
"target
> must check that initiator does X". That's clearly an
incorrect
> conclusion. But given that people make this mistake, I
wonder if a
> note in the guide saying "unless RFC 3720 specifically
requires it, an
> implementation is not required to do protocol
conformance checking on
> incoming message", or something like that,
would be helpful.
>
>
paul
>
>
>
_______________________________________________
> Ips mailing
list
> Ips@xxxxxxxx
>
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ips
>
_______________________________________________
Ips mailing
list
Ips@xxxxxxxx
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ips
|
