RE: [Ips] iSER: draft-ietf-ips-iser-05.txt
"Sanjay Goyal" <sanjayg@ivivity.com> Tue, 29 November 2005 19:08 UTC
Received: from localhost.cnri.reston.va.us ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1EhAqB-0007zN-0d; Tue, 29 Nov 2005 14:08:35 -0500
Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1EhAq9-0007zG-Fc for ips@megatron.ietf.org; Tue, 29 Nov 2005 14:08:33 -0500
Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA21659 for <ips@ietf.org>; Tue, 29 Nov 2005 14:07:49 -0500 (EST)
Received: from [64.238.111.98] (helo=thoth.ivivity.com) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1EhBAF-0008FB-JP for ips@ietf.org; Tue, 29 Nov 2005 14:29:22 -0500
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5.7226.0
Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Subject: RE: [Ips] iSER: draft-ietf-ips-iser-05.txt
Date: Tue, 29 Nov 2005 14:08:21 -0500
Message-ID: <0F31272A2BCBBE4FA01344C6E69DBF50295FF9@thoth.ivivity.com>
Thread-Topic: [Ips] iSER: draft-ietf-ips-iser-05.txt
Thread-Index: AcX1Ffqs9WqbU9j/TY6Cmh88yBYbRAAAhu4g
From: Sanjay Goyal <sanjayg@ivivity.com>
To: Mike Ko <mako@almaden.ibm.com>
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: 8de5f93cb2b4e3bee75302e9eacc33db
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Cc: ips@ietf.org
X-BeenThere: ips@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: IP Storage <ips.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ips>, <mailto:ips-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:ips@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ips-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ips>, <mailto:ips-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Sender: ips-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: ips-bounces@ietf.org
Mike, I understand that, the point I was trying to make was if Initiator prefers iSCSI mode, why would it change its mind after it gets RDMAExtensions key from Target. -Sanjay >Original>-----Original Message----- >Original>From: Mike Ko [mailto:mako@almaden.ibm.com] >Original>Sent: Tuesday, November 29, 2005 1:52 PM >Original>To: Sanjay Goyal >Original>Cc: ips@ietf.org >Original>Subject: Re: [Ips] iSER: draft-ietf-ips-iser-05.txt >Original> >Original>Sanjay, >Original> >Original>There is the possibility that an iSER initiator might >Original>prefer to operate in iSCSI mode and therefore not >Original>offer RDMAExtensions in its Login Request. >Original>But if the target can support and prefers iSER mode, >Original>it can offer RDMAExtensions in its Login Response. >Original>It is then up to the initiator to determine if it >Original>wants to support iSER for this session. The iSER >Original>draft is written to allow such possibilities. >Original> >Original>Mike >Original>Sent by: ips-bounces@ietf.org >Original>To: <ips@ietf.org> >Original>cc: >Original>Subject: [Ips] iSER: draft-ietf-ips-iser-05.txt >Original> >Original> >Original>Hi >Original>below is the description as per >Original>draft-ietf-ips-iser-05.txt section 6.3 >Original> >Original>-------------- >Original>An iSER-enabled node is not required to initiate the >Original>RDMAExtensions >Original> key exchange if it prefers to operate in the >Original>Traditional iSCSI mode. >Original> However, if the RDMAExtensions key is to be >Original>negotiated, an initiator >Original> MUST offer the key in the first Login Request PDU in the >Original> LoginOperationalNegotiation stage of the leading >Original>connection, and a >Original> target MUST offer the key in the first Login >Original>Response PDU with which >Original> it is allowed to do so (i.e., the first Login >Original>Response PDU issued >Original> after the first Login Request PDU with the C bit >Original>set to 0) in the >Original> LoginOperationalNegotiation stage of the leading >Original>connection. In >Original> response to the offered key=value pair of >Original>RDMAExtensions=yes, an >Original> initiator MUST respond in the next Login Request >Original>PDU with which it >Original> is allowed to do so, and a target MUST respond in >Original>the next Login >Original> Response PDU with which it is allowed to do so. >Original>---------- >Original> >Original>What is confusing to me is >Original>"if the RDMAExtensions key is to be negotiated, an initiator >Original> MUST offer the key in the first Login Request PDU in the >Original> LoginOperationalNegotiation stage of the leading >Original>connection" >Original> which is later followed by "In >Original>response to the offered key=value pair of >Original>RDMAExtensions=yes, an >Original> initiator MUST respond in the next Login Request >Original>PDU with which it >Original> is allowed to do so" >Original> >Original>If the Initiator did not exchange the key in first >Original>Login Request, means that it doesnot want to >Original>negotiate, why would it get the key in the first >Original>Login Response as Target should not send it to begin with. >Original> >Original>Please clarify, >Original> >Original>Regards, >Original> >Original>Sanjay Goyal >Original>678-990-1550 x204 >Original>iVivity Inc. >Original>Norcross, GA 30093 >Original> _______________________________________________ >Original>Ips mailing list >Original>Ips@ietf.org >Original>https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ips >Original> >Original> >Original> _______________________________________________ Ips mailing list Ips@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ips
- [Ips] iSER: draft-ietf-ips-iser-05.txt Sanjay Goyal
- Re: [Ips] iSER: draft-ietf-ips-iser-05.txt Mike Ko
- RE: [Ips] iSER: draft-ietf-ips-iser-05.txt Sanjay Goyal
- RE: [Ips] iSER: draft-ietf-ips-iser-05.txt Mike Ko
- RE: [Ips] iSER: draft-ietf-ips-iser-05.txt John Hufferd