Re: login response for non-login request.
Bill Studenmund <wrstuden@wasabisystems.com> Wed, 25 September 2002 22:50 UTC
Received: from ece.cmu.edu (ECE.CMU.EDU [128.2.136.200]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA12328 for <ips-archive@lists.ietf.org>; Wed, 25 Sep 2002 18:50:55 -0400 (EDT)
Received: (from majordom@localhost) by ece.cmu.edu (8.11.0/8.10.2) id g8PMSSw21785 for ips-outgoing; Wed, 25 Sep 2002 18:28:28 -0400 (EDT)
X-Authentication-Warning: ece.cmu.edu: majordom set sender to owner-ips@ece.cmu.edu using -f
Received: from lion.ninthwonder.com (lion.ninthwonder.com [151.199.66.147]) by ece.cmu.edu (8.11.0/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g8PMSQo21781 for <ips@ece.cmu.edu>; Wed, 25 Sep 2002 18:28:26 -0400 (EDT)
Received: by lion.ninthwonder.com (Postfix, from userid 1021) id F161A3070A; Wed, 25 Sep 2002 18:28:25 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Wed, 25 Sep 2002 15:28:10 -0700
From: Bill Studenmund <wrstuden@wasabisystems.com>
X-X-Sender: <wrstuden@candlekeep.home-net.internetconnect.net>
To: Michael Morrison <mmorrison@istor.com>
Cc: iSCSI <ips@ece.cmu.edu>
Subject: Re: login response for non-login request.
In-Reply-To: <1032978132.20055.7.camel@jackallnx.engasic.istor.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.NEB.4.33.0209251514140.323-100000@candlekeep.home-net.internetconnect.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset="US-ASCII"
Sender: owner-ips@ece.cmu.edu
Precedence: bulk
On 25 Sep 2002, Michael Morrison wrote: > In the last paragraph of section 2.2.3 of draft 17 > > "Once the Login phase has started, if the target > receives any PDU except a Login request, it MUST send a Login reject > (with Status "invalid during login") and then disconnect. If the > initiator receives any PDU except a Login response, it MUST > immediately terminate the connection." > > Shouldn't the target send back a Reject PDU with PROTOCOL ERROR in this > case? No. This case explicitly requires a Login Response. > why would the target send a Login Response to a non-login request? You mean besides the fact that's what the standard says? :-) I think the idea is if we're not in FFP, only Login Req/Rsp PDUs are valid. If we're in FFP, everything except them is valid. If the target thinks the initiator broke that rule, it should not also break the rule in telling the initiator that the initiator messed up. Thus a Login Rsp. Also, things should be clearer for the initator. If it thinks it's not in FFP, and it gets a PDU other than Login Rsp, it can immediately flag it as an error. It doesn't have to look and see, "oh, the target is saying I did something wrong." Take care, Bill
- Re: login response for non-login request. Bill Studenmund
- Re: login response for non-login request. Sukanta Ganguly
- login response for non-login request. Michael Morrison
- Re: login response for non-login request. Robert D. Russell