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 at Bellsouth.net>
05/01/07 11:25
To
"Paul Koning" <pkoning at equallogic.com>,
<cb_mallikarjun at yahoo.com>
cc
ips at ietf.org
Subject
Re: [Ips] 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 at equallogic.com>
To: <cb_mallikarjun at yahoo.com>
Cc: <ips at ietf.org>
Sent: Thursday, January 04, 2007 6:00 PM
Subject: Re: [Ips] iSCSI Implementer's Guide - WG Last Call status
>>>>>> "Mallikarjun" == Mallikarjun C <cb_mallikarjun at yahoo.com>
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 at ietf.org
> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ips
>
_______________________________________________
Ips mailing list
Ips at ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ips