|[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]|
I think it's clear that sending a SendTargets response containing a target record with just the TargetName kvp is legal. While the utility of such a response is questionable there are numerous reasons why a target may choose to do this; you've already stated one.
I agree with Paul and don't see any need for the IG / C&C doc to expand this.
From: Eddy Quicksall [mailto:Quicksall_iSCSI@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Friday, 19 January 2007 10:30
To: Daniel.Sullivan@xxxxxxxxxx; ips@xxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: Use of TargetAddress conflict
I remember when we were working on this. At that time some people didn't want to send the target address if it was already known by the initiator. In my target, I have an option to suppress the target address for cases when the target is behind a NAT device and hence I don't know "my address". So far every initiator I've tested with has handled it.
But today when I was going over the text it seemed to be questionable and I figured I would ask. If people think it is questionable text then I would ask Mallikarjun if he would clear it up in the implementation guide.
_______________________________________________ Ips mailing list Ips@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ips