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